single integrated multi-annual national control plan for

Single integrated national control plan for the United Kingdom January 2007 to March 2011:

Progress in 2009 towards implementation - report for the

European Commission

Note Whilst care has been taken to ensure that the web links contained in this report are correct at the time of publication and submission to the European Commission, changes may occur.

UK National Control Plan (January 2007 to March 2011) – progress towards implementation in 2009

Contents

Page Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 3 Contact point.............................................................................................................. 5 Executive summary ................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 1 – Introduction ........................................................................................... 8

Background .............................................................................................................. 8 Purpose of this report ............................................................................................... 8 Scope and content of this report .............................................................................. 9

Chapter 2 - The UK NCP: what have we achieved so far? ................................... 11

Overall objectives ................................................................................................... 11 Specific objectives .................................................................................................. 12

Chapter 3 - the Regulatory landscape: what has changed? ................................ 16

Overview ................................................................................................................ 16 Competent authorities ............................................................................................ 16 National Reference Laboratories............................................................................ 18

Chapter 4 - Working together to safeguard public, animal and plant health, to protect consumers, and to promote animal welfare: what improvements have we made? ................................................................................................................. 22

Overview ................................................................................................................ 22 Co-ordination and co-operation in the feed and food sectors ................................. 22 Co-ordination and co-operation in the animal health and welfare sectors .............. 30 Emergency and contingency planning ................................................................... 33 Working across the EU .......................................................................................... 37

Chapter 5 - Raising standards and sharing good practice: what was achieved in 2009? ........................................................................................................................ 38

Background ............................................................................................................ 38 Feed and food sectors ........................................................................................... 38 Animal health and welfare sectors ......................................................................... 50 Plant health sector ................................................................................................. 54

Chapter 6 – Planning for the future: how far have we got in 2009? .................... 55

Background ............................................................................................................ 55 Overview ................................................................................................................ 55 Official controls in the feed sector .......................................................................... 55 Official controls in the food sector .......................................................................... 62 Feed and food incidents in 2009 ............................................................................ 80 Official controls in the animal health sector ............................................................ 81 Official controls in the animal welfare sector .......................................................... 96 Official controls in the plant health sector ............................................................. 101

Page 2


Abbreviations

AFBI Agri-Food Biosciences Institute for Northern Ireland AHDH Animal Health Dairy Hygiene AHW Animal Health and Welfare AMI Animal Medicines Inspectorate APHIS Animal and Public Health Information System BIP Border Inspection Post BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Cefas Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science CRD Health and Safety Executive’s Chemicals Regulation Directorate CVO Chief Veterinary Officer DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DSP Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning EC European Community EEC European Economic Community EMI Egg Marketing Inspectorate EU European Union Fera Food and Environment Research Agency FHI Fish Health Inspectorate FSA Food Standards Agency FVO Food and Veterinary Office GM Genetically modified HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point HQ Head Quarters HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs HPA Health Protection Agency HSE Health and Safety Executive ISO International Standardisation Organisation LA Local Authority LACORS Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services LAEMS Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring Scheme LV Lead Veterinarian MHS Meat Hygiene Service MRL Maximum Residue Level MSS Marine Scotland Science NBU National Bee Unit NCP National Control Plan NRCP National Residues Control Program

Page 3


NRL National Reference Laboratory OTM Over thirty months OV Official Veterinarian PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls PETS Pet Travel Scheme PFA Point for Action POAO Products of Animal Origin PSD Pesticides Safety Directorate PSP Paralytic shellfish poisoning QAB Quality Assurance Branch RA Welsh Assembly Government, Department for Rural Affairs RASFF Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food RPA Rural Payments Agency SASA Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture SFBB Safer Food Better Business SG R&ED Scottish Government Rural and Environment Directorate SGRPID Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate SI Statutory Instrument SLA Service Level Agreement SR Statutory Rule SRM Specified Risk Material SSI Scottish Statutory Instrument TRACES Trade Control and Expert System TSEs Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies UKAS United Kingdom Accreditation Service UKBA United Kingdom Border Agency VMD Veterinary Medicines Directorate VS DARD Veterinary Service VS-VPHU DARD Veterinary Service – Veterinary Public Health Unit

Page 4


Page 5

Contact point

All enquiries in relation to this Report should, in the first instance, be directed to: Contact: Alan Curran

Food Standards Agency Head, Official Controls & Enforcement Strategy Enforcement and Local Authority Delivery Division

Address: Room 5B, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH Email: [email protected]

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7276 8361 Fax: +44 (0)20 7276 8447 Enquires will then be forwarded either within the Food Standards Agency or to other Government Departments as appropriate.

mailto:[email protected]


Page 6

Executive summary Regulation 882/2004 on official controls requires Member States to produce annual reports for the European Commission on the implementation of their national control plans covering the delivery of official controls in the feed and food, animal health and animal welfare, and plant heath sectors. This is the third such report on the UK's Plan and it covers the period 1 January to 31 December 2009. The UK competent authorities continued to deliver a comprehensive and integrated system of official controls from ‘farm to fork’ for monitoring and verifying compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules and plant health law. As with previous years, UK authorities have reviewed how they work with the aim to improve compliance and to ensure a proportionate risk-based approach that protects public, animal, and plant health, and consumer interests, without imposing unnecessary burdens on the authorities responsible for undertaking these controls or those that are subject to them. Local and port health authorities have continued to apply official controls effectively on imported food, contributing to strategic objectives on reducing risks to consumers from food borne illness, limiting the risks from contamination and protecting consumers from illegal practices. Central competent authorities have taken measures to facilitate and verify consistent and effective controls through: guidance to enforcement practitioners; provision of support to co-ordinating bodies; carrying out audits, to verify the controls’ effectiveness across the food supply chain, and provision of web based information; thereby enabling the overall objective of effective implementation of relevant EU law. During the reporting year, further work has been carried out in a number of areas with regard to achieving a reduction of Campylobacter in chicken and a resulting reduction in human cases. A Government-Industry Working Group on Campylobacter was established in August 2009 to identify practical and effective interventions in the control of Campylobacter ,and at producer level, the Agency has worked with industry to develop and implement improved biosecurity measures to limit Campylobacter colonisation of chickens. Equally, further work has continued to control Listeria monocytogenes to develop a risk management programme that aims to reduce listeriosis, particularly within high-risk groups, such as people over 60. The third year of implementing the Plan saw a renewed attention to the issue of culture and behaviour in businesses and enforcement bodies as they relate to compliance with food hygiene legislation, following the E. coli O157 outbreak and the publication of the Pennington Public Inquiry Report in 20091. A work programme led by the Agency, covering all foodborne pathogens and all food groups across the UK is addressing the report’s findings and recommendations. 1 Food Standards Agency (March 2009): The Public Inquiry into the September 2005 Outbreak of E.coli in South

Wales www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/mar/ecoliwales

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/mar/ecoliwales


Page 7

As part of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) compliance and enforcement strategy, which emphasises working with businesses to achieve compliance rather than relying on enforcement alone, the MHS introduced a system which identifies businesses considered a ‘cause for concern’ on the basis of their most recent audit scores. New audits are conducted by way of review of these establishments (representing only 6% of the total number of approved meat establishments in Great Britain) and many were able to demonstrate improvements resulting in the removal of ‘cause for concern’ status. In the autumn of 2009, the FSA ensured that appropriate action was taken to protect public health, following a food incident, involving Salmonella associated with eggs from Spain. During 2009 the threat of Bluetongue continued with active infection in France and Germany. Defra and Devolved Administrations in Great Britain continued to see the benefits of action by farmers to control Bluetongue serotype 8 (BTV8) by vaccination. The vaccination campaign proved to be a successful partnership between government and the livestock sector as no domestic cases of BTV8 were detected in 2009. Northern Ireland maintained its virus-free status, and the results of a targeted survey in Great Britain at the end of 2009 found no evidence of circulating virus2. During the period of the report the Plant Health Service has worked to meet the overall objective of ensuring that the UK has an effective system of official controls for monitoring and verifying compliance with plant health law under Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Resource constraints, as noted by the FVO in its mission report, create challenges. The UK Plan continues to be extremely useful in raising awareness of the roles and responsibilities of the competent authorities in the UK and in identifying official control priorities in the various sectors. It was reviewed again during 2009. No substantive changes were required, but a number of amendments were made regarding changes to the structure of some competent authorities and the development of audit arrangements. The Plan has also been updated to reflect publication of new or revised guidance material, national legislation and the appointment of National Reference Laboratories.

2 defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/bluetongue/factsheet.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/bluetongue/factsheet.htm


Page 8

Chapter 1 – Introduction Background 1.1 The UK Single Integrated National Control Plan (January 2007 to March 2011) -

NCP - was prepared jointly by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Scottish Government Rural Directorate (SG RD), the Welsh Assembly Government Department for Rural Affairs (RA), and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland (DARD). The Plan was prepared in order to meet the requirements of European Community Regulation 882/2004 on official controls.3 It:

• describes the roles and responsibilities of the competent authorities (regulatory authorities) and associated bodies responsible for official feed and food, animal health and animal welfare, and plant health controls in the UK;

• outlines how these authorities meet the requirements of Regulation 882/2004;

• provides an overview of how these authorities and other bodies work together to safeguard public and animal health, and to protect consumers; and

• sets out the strategic objectives of the plan, and the planned control activities of the various authorities for the period of the plan.

The latest version of the NCP is published on the FSA website at: food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/uknationalcontrolplan.pdf

1.2 Regulation 882/2004 on official controls also requires Member States to produce

annual reports for the European Commission (the Commission) on the implementation of their national control plans. This is the third report on the UK NCP and it covers the period 1 January to 31 December 2009. As with the Plan itself, this has been prepared jointly by the FSA, Defra, SG RD, the Welsh Assembly Government RA, and DARD.

Purpose of this report 1.3 The purpose of the report is to update the Commission on progress towards

implementing the NCP. This is achieved by assessing the effectiveness of the 3 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to

ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and welfare rules. Official Journal L191, 28.5.2004, 1-52.

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/uknationalcontrolplan.pdf


Page 9

control arrangements and control systems set out in the NCP. This, in turn, is based on the results of official controls and associated activities and on the findings of audits of the competent authorities undertaken during 2009. It also reports on developments and improvements that are being made to control arrangements as a consequence of these results and findings.

1.4 The report is being submitted to the Commission and will be used by its

Inspection Services, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), to inform future inspection missions/audits carried out in the UK. Additionally, the Report will be fed in, together with similar reports prepared by the other Member States, to a Commission report to the Council and European Parliament on the overall operation of official controls within the European Community.

Scope and content of this report 1.5 The scope of this report is consistent with that of the NCP and covers control

systems in the UK in respect of feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, and plant health rules under Directive 2000/29/EC.4

1.6 The Commission has developed guidance on the content of annual reports on

implementation of national control plans and this has been taken into account in preparing this UK report.5

1.7 It should be noted that in the UK much of the data on official controls and

associated activities is collected on a financial year (which runs from April to March) rather than a calendar year basis. Additionally, responsibility for many of the control activities covered is de-centralised and the collection, validation, collation, and analysis of data at the central level is a major and complex exercise given the number of authorities involved. In many cases, the established timetables for these exercises extend over several months following the end of the financial year. As a result, analysis of the data for the financial year 2009/10 has not yet been completed in time for inclusion in this first report. Where this is the case, the data for the 2008/09 period has been reported. As reporting is an on-going annual process throughout the period of the NCP, this third report will attempt to assess to some extent the progress towards implementing the NCP and identify trends in the results of control activities and the performance of the component authorities.

4 Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms

harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community. Official Journal L 169, 10.7.2000, 1-112.

5 Commission Decision on guidelines to assist Member States in preparing the annual report on the single integrated multi-annual national control plan provided for in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document number C(2008) 3756). Official Journal L 214, 9.8.2008, 56-65.


1.8 This third report:

• outlines the progress that has been made towards achieving the objectives of the UK NCP - Chapter 2;

• describes changes to the regulatory landscape in the UK - Chapter 3;

• outlines the improvements that have been made to the mechanisms in place for the competent authorities and other bodies involved in official controls to work together to safeguard public, animal and plant health, to protect consumers, and to promote animal welfare - Chapter 4;

• provides an analysis of the performance of the competent authorities and control bodies - Chapter 5; and

• summarises the official controls that have been undertaken and their outcome (including the level of compliance by business operator) and provides information on the actions taken to address non-compliance with the requirements of feed and food law, animal health and welfare rules and plant health law - Chapter 6.

Page 10


Page 11

Chapter 2 - The UK NCP: what have we achieved so far?

Overall objectives ` 2.1 The overall objectives of the UK NCP are to:

• ensure the effective implementation of relevant Community law;

• ensure that the UK enforces feed law and food law and monitors and verifies that relevant requirements are met, and, that systems of official controls and other appropriate surveillance and monitoring activities, covering all stages of production, processing and distribution of feed and food, are maintained;

• ensure that the UK has an effective system of official controls for monitoring and verifying compliance with animal health and welfare rules; and

• ensure that the UK has an effective system of official controls for monitoring and verifying compliance with plant health law under Council Directive 2000/29/EC6.

2.2 The arrangements set out in the NCP 2007-2011 for delivering a comprehensive

and integrated system of official controls to monitor and verify compliance with feed and food law, animal health and welfare rules and plant health law were maintained throughout 2009. This was achieved by working across central Government and in partnership with our enforcement stakeholders and their representative and professional bodies to take a flexible and proportionate, risk-based approach aimed at protecting public, animal and plant health, and consumer interests without imposing unnecessary burdens on the authorities that are responsible for undertaking official controls or on those that are subject to these controls.

2.3 During 2009, the FSA dealt with a complex food incident, involving Salmonella

associated with eggs from Spain, through effective contingency planning work with the European Commission and our Spanish counterparts. The Agency worked with relevant UK organisations, including the Health Protection Agency, local authorities, the Egg Marketing Inspectorate, Defra, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland (DARD) and Public Health Wales to identify the source of the cases of illness and to ensure that appropriate action was taken to protect public health. The Agency also contacted local authorities and UK distributors and re-issued advice to caterers and other food businesses on how to cook and prepare eggs properly.

6 Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms

harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community. Official Journal L 169, 10.7.2000, 1-112.


Page 12

2.4 The extent to which planned activities for 2009 in the various sectors, including the animal health and animal welfare sectors, were achieved is described elsewhere in this report.

Specific objectives Feed and food sectors 2.5 In these sectors, the specific objectives for the UK NCP are:

• limiting and monitoring the risks to consumers from chemical and radiological contamination;

• reducing foodborne illness; • making it easier for consumers to make informed choices; and, • protecting consumers from food fraud and illegal practices. These objectives link closely to key targets in the current Strategic or Business Plans for the Government Departments and Agencies that have responsibility at central level for official feed and food controls.

2.6 The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has reported progress on meeting these

objectives in its Annual Report of the Chief Scientist 2009/10.7 Key achievements (highlighted in the draft report) include:

• development of a new Campylobacter Risk Management Programme including work in a number of areas with regard to achieving a reduction of Campylobacter in chicken and a resulting reduction in human cases;

• monitoring and evaluation of the scientific advisory committees to ensure that we continue to receive high standards of independent scientific advice;

• working with food businesses and local authorities on preventing and responding to food incidents 8 and

• developing a new work programme on emerging risks so the Agency can be as prepared as possible to anticipate and deal with emerging and re-emerging risks.

During the latter part of 2009/10, the FSA and MHS Internal Audit teams merged under the ‘One Agency’ reorganisation. This has created a smaller, efficient team working formally across both organisations from December 2009.

2.7 The other competent authorities responsible for official feed and food controls

such as the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), Defra (including its agencies, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate - VMD) the Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD) of the Health and Safety Executive, the Scottish Government Rural

7 FSA Annual report will be published at: food.gov.uk/. Key achievements are highlighted in the draft report

presented to the Board in July which is published at food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa100708a1.pdf 8 More information at: food.gov.uk/foodindustry/incidents/

http://www.food.gov.uk/

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa100708a1.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/incidents/


Page 13

Directorate, the Welsh Assembly Government’s Department for Rural Affairs, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland have also made progress on meeting their objectives (which are also referred to in the NCP). In the case of the MHS and Defra and its agencies, this progress is outlined in their annual reports which are available at: food.gov.uk/multimedia/webpage/mhsannrep0910 defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/reports/annual.htm vmd.gov.uk/Publications/AnnReps/AnnReps.htm pesticides.gov.uk/corporate.asp?id=913

2.8 In the 2008 annual report, we highlighted some of the main outcomes of the

FSA’s revised enforcement policy that had been implemented; notably a new food law monitoring system, Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring Scheme (LAEMS) for reporting local authority (LA) official controls activity from 2008/09.9 LAEMS has introduced automatic data transfer from LAs to the Agency, which provides a more accurate and enhanced data base, better analysis opportunities and as such, more robust baselines upon which to track trends.

Animal health and animal welfare sectors 2.9 The specific objectives for the UK NCP in these sectors are to:

• protect public and animal health; • promote the welfare of animals; and • protect the interests of the wider economy, environment and society by

preventing, controlling and eradicating diseases, and to encourage international trade.

These link closely to the Animal Health and Welfare (AHW) Strategy for Great Britain and also that for Northern Ireland. 10, 11

2.10 Although there were no major outbreaks of exotic diseases during 2009, the UK’s

international disease monitoring highlighted the continuing proximity of some significant disease risks, while risk assessments helped to inform our programmes of disease prevention. Work has continued across a wide range of risk based projects to improve disease prevention and emergency preparedness. Further information can be found in “Progress through partnership – The UK Chief Veterinary Officer’s 2009 report on animal health and welfare”.12 Key activities during 2009 included: • Animal welfare remained a key priority during 2009. The UK was a major

contributor to the negotiations on a new EU Regulation on the protection of animal welfare at the time of slaughter or killing13.

9 More information is available at: food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/laems/ 10 Strategy for Great Britain is available at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/index.htm 11 Strategy for Northern Ireland is available at: dardni.gov.uk/animal-health-and-welfare-strategy.pdf 12 defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/who/cvo/report.htm 13 europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:303:0001:0030:EN:PDF

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/webpage/mhsannrep0910

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/reports/annual.htm

http://www.vmd.gov.uk/Publications/AnnReps/AnnReps.htm

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/corporate.asp?id=913

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/laems/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/index.htm

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/animal-health-and-welfare-strategy.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/who/cvo/report.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:303:0001:0030:EN:PDF


Page 14

• In February 2009 Defra published its response to the Anderson Review14 of the government’s handling of the 2007 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in Surrey. The government accepted all 26 of the main recommendations and the response is available at defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/fmd/documents/anderson-090203.pdf

• In March 2009 the EC Directive 2006/8815, which lays out the basic framework for aquatic animal health within Europe, was implemented into national legislation through the Aquatic Animal Health (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 and parallel legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

• Following the mass mortalities of Pacific oysters in France and the spread of the Oyster Herpesvirus 1 (OsHV-1 μvar) to Ireland and Jersey the UK worked with the Commission to introduce measures to control increased mortalities in Pacific oysters in connection with the detection of the disease16.

• During 2009 the threat of Bluetongue continued with active infection in France and Germany. Defra continued to see the benefits of the action of farmers to control Bluetongue serotype 8 (BTV8) by vaccination across GB. The vaccination campaign proved to be a successful partnership between government and the livestock sector as no domestic cases of BTV8 were detected in 2009. Northern Ireland maintained its free status, and the results of a targeted survey in GB at the end of 2009 found no evidence of circulating virus17.

• The four administrations pursued policies on controlling bovine tuberculosis (TB) throughout 2009. This was recognised when the European Commission approved TB Eradication Plan for the UK, which secured an EU funding commitment of up to €10m in 2010 towards compensation for cattle slaughtered and testing costs. The funding is to be shared between Defra and the Welsh and Northern Ireland administrations.

• In October 2009 the TB Eradication Group for England18 presented its Progress Report to stakeholders. The report outlined progress the Group has made in developing a Bovine TB Eradication Programme for England; the risk-based approach they are taking in identifying and assessing new policies; and changes made following recommendations e.g. how to assist farmers under TB restriction to enable them to maintain their businesses.

2.11 In Wales during 2009, the Animal Health and Welfare Steering (AHWS) Group,

which advises the Welsh Assembly Government on taking forward the Wales Action Plan 2009-10, continued to work with the Welsh Assembly Government on key initiatives under the plan. One of its main focuses during the year was the TB Eradication Programme19 in Wales which includes comprehensive measures to

14 defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/fmd/documents/anderson-090203.pdf 15 Council Directive 2006/88/EC on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and

on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals. Official Journal L 328, 24.11.2006, 14-56. 16 europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:052:0001:0013:EN:PDF 17 defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/bluetongue/factsheet.htm 18 defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/partnership/eradication-group/index.htm 19 wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/disease/bovinetuberculosis/bovinetberadication/?lang=en

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/fmd/documents/anderson-090203.pdf




http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/bluetongue/factsheet.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/partnership/eradication-group/index.htm

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/disease/bovinetuberculosis/bovinetberadication/?lang=en


Page 15

eradicate bovine TB in both cattle and wildlife. The Programme was approved by the European Commission as part of the UK TB Eradication Plan in November 2009. The AHWS Group were regularly consulted and are recognised as a key means of stakeholder engagement on the Programme and have made valuable contributions to its on-going development. Disease prevention has continued to be a major topic of discussion with emphasis on the threats of bluetongue. The AHWS Group have supported efforts to implement the proposals identified within the Welsh Plan and areas of interest have been the on-going hydatid campaign in South Powys, cattle psoroptic mange, sheep scab and biosecurity.

2.12 During 2009 the Scottish Government extended their large scale sheep

electronic identification (EID) research pilot20 to build on the practical lessons learnt in phase one of the project and to look at the long term benefits of EID, particularly focussing on the use of a new centralised individual animal database. The emerging findings and of the pilot will continue to inform Government and Industry on the best way to ensure continued improvement of traceability.

2.13 In Northern Ireland, DARD finalised work to ensure the agreement of the All-

Island Animal Health and Welfare Strategy during 2009. The Strategy is designed to optimise the animal health status of the island of Ireland through the alignment of policies to control animal disease. Full co-operation on animal health issues has the potential to help reduce and prevent animal disease spread and facilitate trade. The ultimate objective of the Strategy is the development of policies which facilitate free movement of animals on the island. Further details can be found on the DARD website at dardni.gov.uk/index/animal-health.htm.

Plant health sector 2.14 The strategic objectives as regards plant health controls are to contribute to:

• protecting the countryside and natural resources; and • ensuring sustainable farming and food supply. These link closely with the objectives of the strategic plans for Defra and the Agriculture/Rural Affairs Departments in the Devolved Administrations and to Defra’s Plant Health Strategy for England.

2.15 During 2009/10, action continued against on-going disease threats. Significant

cases dealt with included the first findings of Phytophthora ramorum in Japanese larch, necessitating the felling of thousands of larch trees; outbreaks in tomatoes of the pest Tuta absoluta and Oak processionary moth in oak trees in south-west London. A new control programme for Phytophthora ramorum and P. kernoviae began operation on 1st April.

20 www.scoteid.com/

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/animal-health.htm

http://www.scoteid.com/


Page 16

Chapter 3 - the Regulatory landscape: what has changed? Overview 3.1 For the most part, the division of responsibility for official controls within the UK

as described in the NCP has remained unchanged during 2009. As part of the FSA Scotland pilot project to combine the official control of feed and food law at primary production, power has been given by Regulation for the FSA to authorise officers to carry out the enforcement of feed law at primary production. FSA Scotland subsequently authorised officers of the Scottish Government Rural Payments Inspectorate Directorate (SGRPID) to undertake targeted official controls to primary producers as part of a coordinated programme of inspections with local authorities. There were a number of organisational changes at central Government level, and a number of new National Reference Laboratories have been designated. These changes are described briefly below.

Competent authorities Organisational changes at central Government level 3.2 A number of organisational changes took place in 2009:

• At the beginning of April, the functions of the Pesticides Safety Directorate, the competent authority for plant protection products (including pesticide residues in food) became part of the work of the Chemicals Regulation Directorate of the Health and Safety Executive (more details are available at http://www.pesticides.gov.uk./)

• A new executive agency of Defra, Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera)21, was created on 1 April 2009 by merging two Executive Agencies of Defra, the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) - including the National Bee Unit, and the Government Decontamination Service (GDS), along with Defra’s Plant Health Division (PHD), Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate (PHSI) and the Plant Variety Rights Office and Seeds Division (PVS). For forestry matters in Great Britain, policy responsibility still rests with the Forestry Commission’s Plant Health Service with scientific support provided by the Forest Research Agency.

21 www.fera.defra.gov.uk

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk./

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/


Page 17

• Marine Scotland22 was established on 1 April 2009 bringing together the functions and resources of the previous Scottish Government Marine Directorate, Fisheries Research Services (now known as Marine Scotland Science) and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency.

• In Scotland, the separate agency Scottish Agricultural Science Agency (that provides a diagnostic service to beekeepers) was reabsorbed into the Scottish Government, and renamed Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture.

• The transformation programme of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) that started in 2008 was substantially completed by the end of 2009. Towards the end of 2009, absorption of the MHS into the FSA commenced, with the aim of ending the Executive status of the MHS by creating one Food Standards Agency.

Beef labelling controls by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) 3.3 Following the re-approvals procedure required by the Food and Feed Hygiene

Regulations, RPA now undertake beef labelling scheme inspections at a number of Catering Butchers in England and Wales. These premises were added onto the FSA approval list on the basis that they were involved in pre retail presentation cutting of meat as defined under the Food and Feed Hygiene Regulations rather than any other definition. So far an additional 120 plants have been added under the responsibility of RPA since the re-approval process began.

3.4 Some Catering Butchers have applied to be exempt from MHS inspections (and

subsequently RPA); these being small premises that slaughter and/or cut less than an agreed tonnage of meat (up to 2 tonnes per week). These premises remain under the jurisdiction of Local Authority.

3.5 The current division of responsibility for official feed, food, animal health and

animal welfare controls within the UK is summarised in Figures 1 to 3.

22 scotland.gov.uk/About/Directorates/Wealthier-and-Fairer/marine-scotland

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Directorates/Wealthier-and-Fairer/marine-scotland


Page 18

National Reference Laboratories 3.6 New National Reference Laboratories have been designated by the relevant

competent authorities for certain analytical activities in 2009. Details are given in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1: New NRLs appointed in 2009

Analytical activity Competent authority responsible for appointing the NRL

NRL

Mycotoxins Food Standards Agency Fera Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ

Microbiological testing of milk and dairy products

Food Standards Agency Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) Newforge Lane Belfast, BT9 5PX

Monitoring of Marine biotoxins AFBI

Live bivalve molluscs (microbiology)

Food Standards Agency Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) The Nothe, Barrack Road Weymouth Dorset, DT4 8UB

Live bivalve molluscs (marine biotoxins)

Food Standards Agency AFBI

Listeria monocytogenes, Coagulase positive Staphylococci (inc. S.aureus), E.coli (inc.VTEC), Camplylobacter, Antimicrobial resistance, Salmonella in food

Food Standards Agency Health Protection Agency (HPA), 61 Colindale, Avenue, London NW9 5EQ

Trichinella Food Standards Agency Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), Addlestone, Weybridge, Surrey, KT15 3NB

Genetically Modified Organisms Food Standards Agency LGC Limited, Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW1 10LY

Additives for use in animal nutrition Food Standards Agency LGC Limited


Page 19

Figure 1 – Division of responsibility for official food controls - at a glance Developing and Implementing food law

FSA Defra (and its agencies), the SG RD, RA and DARD • General - traceability, rapid alert system (RASFF), official controls • Import controls - public health aspects, fish/fishery products and products of

non-animal origin • Labelling - general, nutritional, health claims • Composition and standards - e.g. bottled waters, fat spreads, chocolate,

foods for particular nutritional use, irradiation • Biological safety - e.g. food hygiene, TSEs. • Chemical safety - e.g. additives, contaminants, food contact materials, • Biotechnology - GM food

• Imports controls - animal health aspects for products of animal origin • Labelling - beef labelling and protected food names • Composition and standards - organic produce • Biological safety - certain rules relating to TSEs • Residues of pesticides • Residues of veterinary products (VMD)

Ensuring that food satisfies the requirements of food law

Farm All stages of production, processing and distribution Fork

Food business operators (Approximately 600,000 establishments, plus approximately 195,000 holdings at primary production level.)

Official controls in respect of food law

Central level Local level FSA • Inspection and

approval of food irradiation facilities

• Approval of fresh meat premises

• Classification of shellfish harvesting areas

• Recognition of natural mineral waters from non-EEA countries

MHS • Hygiene controls -

fresh meat • SRM controls AHDH (on behalf of the FSA) • Hygiene controls -

milk production holdings

AHEM/SGRPID (on behalf of the FSA) • Hygiene controls -

egg production units

Defra (on UK-wide basis) • Organisation of

protected food names scheme

• Overseeing system for certification of organic produce

• Policy on beef labelling system

VMD • Veterinary medicine

drug residue surveillance

HSE (CRD) • Pesticide residue

monitoring and enforcement

RPA • Beef labelling for

England & Wales

DARD (on behalf of FSA)

• Hygiene controls primary production

• fresh meat, milk production holdings/liquid milk premises, egg production units/packing stations

DARD • SRM controls • Overseeing system

for certification of organic produce

• Beef labelling

SG RD • Beef labelling

Local authorities in England and Wales • Official controls

and enforcement of the main body of food law, including imported food controls (all food law except that enforced by the central Departments and their Agencies)

Local authorities in Scotland • Official controls

and enforcement of the main body of food law, including imported food controls (all food law except that enforced by the central Departments and their Agencies)

• AHDH role - hygiene controls at milk production holdings

District Councils in Northern Ireland • Official controls

and enforcement of the main body of food law (all food law except that enforced by DARD)


Page 20

Figure 2 – Division of responsibility for official feed controls - at a glance

Developing and Implementing feed law

FSA Defra (and its agencies), the SG RD, RA and DARD

• General - traceability, rapid alert system (RASFF), official controls • Import controls • Labelling • Composition and standards • Biological safety - e.g. feed hygiene • Chemical safety - prohibited and undesirable substances • Biotechnology - GM feed

• Animal by-products - feed ban, Salmonellas etc. • Medicated feed • Chemical safety - specified feed additives

Ensuring that feed satisfies the requirements of feed law

Farm All stages of production, processing and distribution Feed trough

Feed business operators (Approximately 140,000 business in the UK - this includes farms.)

Official controls in respect of feed law

Central level Local level

VMD • Medicated feed • Specified feed

additives • Veterinary

medicine drug residue surveillance

CRD • Pesticide residue

monitoring and enforcement

Animal Health • Animal protein in

feed ban

DARD • All feed law

controls in Northern Ireland

Local authorities in England and Wales • Official controls and

enforcement of the main body of feed law, including imported feed (all feed law not enforced by Defra and its Agencies)

Local authorities in Scotland • Official controls and

enforcement of the main body of feed law, including imported feed (all feed law not enforced by Defra and its Agencies)


Page 21

Figure 3 – Division of responsibility for official animal health and welfare controls

Policy and Development and implementation of animal health and animal welfare legislation

• Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) • Scottish Government Rural Directorate (SG RD) • Welsh Assembly Government, Department for Rural Affairs (RA) • Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland (DARD)

Official controls (Delivery landscape)

Defra Executive Agencies

Devolved Administrations

Other Government Departments

Local Government Non-departmental Public Bodies

Other bodies

• Animal Health (including local veterinary inspectors)

• Rural Payments Agency (including the British Cattle Movement Service)

• Veterinary Laboratories Agency

• Veterinary Medicines Directorate

• Food and Environment Research Agency - Bee Health Unit

• Cefas Fish Health Inspectorate

• SG RD (Scottish Government Field Officers and Fisheries Research Services)

• RA (Rural Payments Wales)

• DARD (Veterinary Service and Grants and Subsidies Division)

• Food Standards Agency (Meat Hygiene Service)

• Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs/United Kingdom Border Agency

• Local authorities in Great Britain

• Port health authorities

• LACORS (Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services) - co-ordination role

• Environment Agency

• Meat and Livestock Commission

• Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals


Page 22

Chapter 4 - Working together to safeguard public, animal and plant health, to protect consumers, and to promote animal welfare: what improvements have we made? Overview 4.1 The National Control Plan (NCP) outlines the main mechanisms that are in place

in the UK for facilitating co-ordination and co-operation, on a day-to-day basis and for dealing with emergencies, between the various competent authorities and other bodies that are responsible for undertaking official controls. It also outlines the mechanisms in place for the competent authorities in the UK to assist and co-operate with the European Commission and with other Member States where issues are identified that may have a potential impact in more than one Member State or across the Community.

4.2 A number of improvements to existing mechanisms and a number of new ones

that were put in place during 2009 played a significant part in ensuring that the overall objectives of the UK NCP were achieved; these are reported in the following paragraphs.

Co-ordination and co-operation in the feed and food sectors Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) Regional and National Liaison Groups for feed and food 4.3 LACORS and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) continued working together in

2009 to establish a system of Regional Liaison Groups in England to provide a more strategic forum for representatives of Local Food Liaison Groups to raise issues or concerns with the FSA and provide informal feedback on Official Control activity. There have also been separate meetings in 2009 with the Regional Liaison Groups as well as enforcement working groups (covering specific sectors) for each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The FSA will host further meetings during 2010, via the new Regional Liaison Groups and via the smaller county Food Liaison Groups to establish more effective coordination and communication of feed and food policy and enforcement.

4.4 Local Authorities in England and Wales participate in ‘Food Liaison Group

Meetings’ where co-ordination of activities through the different regions is discussed. Animal Health Dairy Hygiene, who carry out official controls in


Page 23

England and Wales also attend Food Liaison Group Meetings in order to facilitate better communication between the local authorities and Animal Health.

Food Standards Agency support mechanisms FSA Local Authority Monitoring Scheme 4.5 Introduction of FSA Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring Scheme (LAEMS)

for reporting local authority (LA) official controls activity from 2008/09 has introduced automatic data transfer from LAs to the Agency This provides a more accurate and enhanced data base, better analysis opportunities and as such, more robust baselines upon which to track trends. LAEMS collects data on the levels of UK food business compliance with food law as assessed by LA food officers during routine inspections. It also collects, for the first time, data on LA food law enforcement staffing levels.

Stakeholder groups 4.6 The UK NCP highlights that the FSA has set up a number of stakeholder groups

for facilitating co-ordination and co-operation as regards feed and food controls. These Groups continued to meet during 2008 and the discussions that took place helped to contribute to achieving greater co-ordination and co-operation. The aim of these discussions is to effect better targeting of official controls in areas of greatest risk and reduce unnecessary burdens on businesses. They help ensure the Agency has a greater understanding of the practical implications of regulations, and provides a forum for collaborative activity to support business compliance.

4.7 During 2009 the Primary Production Enforcement Working Group (PPEWG) was

established in Scotland. This group meets approximately 5 times per year to discuss the ongoing primary production enforcement regime, and issues such as guidance and training are discussed and agreed. The group includes representation from FSA, enforcement (local authorities and Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (SGRPID)) and industry (National Farmer Union Scotland and Scottish Crofting Federation).

FSA training for local authority enforcement officers 4.8 The following training courses were held in 2009:

• Training programme for local authority enforcement officers – Training was provided across the UK in the following areas: enforcement of the Food and Feed Hygiene Regulations; food and feed hygiene enforcement interventions; HACCP training; primary production feed and food hygiene, incident handling workshops; FSA Guidance and protocols; imported food (including inland intermediate imported food); working effectively with ethnic food businesses; vacuum-packing; and bottled water legislation. Other subjects for training included HACCP assessment, investigation skills, on-farm pasteurisation,


Page 24

food labelling, vacuum-packing, social marketing/behavioural change, auditing skills, meat inspection refresher, healthy eating and nutrition, speciality cheese-making, shellfish hygiene, food factory inspections, food and nutritional labelling, and evaluation of effective food safety management systems. E-learning was also available on Food Allergens and Vacuum Packing.

• Public Analysts’ training workshop for dioxins – The Agency funded and contributed to the preparation and running of a one-day Public Analysts’ training workshop run by the NRL for dioxins.

• SGRPID officer training and authorisation - Six one-day enforcement courses were rolled out to 129 SGRPID staff in 2009. They were subsequently authorised under the Feed (Hygiene and Enforcement) Regulations 2009 in order that those not already authorised under the Food Hygiene Regulations 2006, may carry out primary production food and feed hygiene inspections, whilst carrying out cross compliance inspections. A total of 209 officers were fully authorised at the end of 2009.

• Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) training for Official Veterinarians (OVs) and Official Auditors (OAs) - Significant training initiatives in 2009 related to the phased introduction of changes to levels of MHS supervision of SRM Controls. Also developed and introduced in 2009 was a new Technical Development Programme which brought together key business partners to identify and develop new training programmes to meet the needs of the business and assess the most suitable, and cost effective delivery, of training for front-line operational staff.

• Scottish Primary Production Official Controls System (SPPOCS) database - This database, which is being rolled-out in stages, has been designed to capture official control data and allow data sharing between both enforcing authorities. It is intended to facilitate inspection planning and will provide a reporting facility for use by the FSA.

Grants and expertise 4.9 The following were provided in 2009:

• Safer Food Better Business (SFBB) – SFBB is an ongoing programme that was developed by the FSA to help micro and small catering and retail businesses comply with the legal requirements for food safety management procedures based on HACCP principles. The programme continues to provide free SFBB packs for businesses and a toolkit is available on line for local authorities. Grants totalling over £10m, to assist businesses through support projects, have also been provided and to date FSA grant-funded activity has provided face to face support for approximately 60,000 businesses. In addition, regional training has been provided to around 1,500 local authority officers to help them deliver the SFBB programme. Last year, we reported that an interactive SFBB DVD, with an on-line version which is available at sfbbtraining.co.uk, and a supplement for small residential care

http://www.sfbbtraining.co.uk/


Page 25

homes were launched in 2008. In October 2009, an SFBB pack specifically developed for Childminders was launched to support those who prepare food for children in their care.

• Safe Catering – Your Guide to Making Food Safely – This initiative in Northern Ireland continues to help catering businesses produce a food safety management plan, based on HACCP principles, and keep records appropriate to their business. More information on the Safe Catering initiative is available at food.gov.uk/northernireland/safetyhygieneni/safecateringni/.

• Food co-products entering the animal feed chain – A successful pilot scheme was completed whereby district council Environmental Health Officers included checks on food co-products intended for use as animal feed. Following this pilot the programme was rolled out across Northern Ireland in May 2009.This programme is ongoing, and district councils can inform DARD where food co-products are sent for use as animal feed.

• CookSafe and RetailSafe – In Scotland, two packs have been produced to help businesses implement food hygiene legislation successfully. CookSafe is designed to help catering businesses understand and implement HACCP-based systems and RetailSafe is designed for retailers handling high-risk foods. As in previous years, these packs were made available through a commercial publisher23. The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland24 established a programme which delivers CookSafe training. More information on CookSafe and RetailSafe is available at: food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/hygleg/hyglegresources/cookretailscotland/

• Feed hygiene controls – The FSA pays £1.5 million per year to local authorities for undertaking official controls in respect of Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 on feed hygiene25 in England (to be provided annually on an on-going basis, as agreed in 2008). Separate arrangements have been made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to fund official controls in respect of this legislation.

• Monitoring of chemical migration - Grants were made available to the local authorities to carry out additional monitoring of chemical migration from food contact materials and articles being imported from third countries. In support of the NRL activities on food Contact Materials the Agency funded a workshop for public analysts dealing with a range of topics including, the role of the CRL-NRL network, migration test conditions, overall and specific migration testing, method performance guidelines and declarations of compliance.

• Monitoring irradiated food - FSA funding was provided to local and port health authorities to support additional sampling for irradiated Asian noodle-type meals and food supplement products as requested by the Commission26.

23 TSO (The Stationery Office) - tso.co.uk/ 24 Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland - royal-environmental-health.org.uk/ 25 Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down requirements for feed

hygiene. Official Journal L35, 8.2.2005, 1-22. 26 Report from the Commission on food irradiation for the year 2005. Official Journal C 122, 2.6.2007, 3-12

http://www.food.gov.uk/northernireland/safetyhygieneni/safecateringni/

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/hygleg/hyglegresources/cookretailscotland/

http://www.tso.co.uk/

http://www.royal-environmental-health.org.uk/


Page 26

FSA presence in English regions 4.10 The Agency’s Regional Teams extended their cover to all nine English regions

during 2009/10 to ensure strengthened links with local authorities and effective dialogue on enforcement issues. As part of this work, the regional teams, in collaboration with LACORS, organised technical update training events in the nine regions, with over 500 local authority officers attending the series of events. The teams also attended relevant local Food Liaison Group meetings in all regions to ensure effective delivery and dialogue on key Agency regulatory priorities. Over the year there has been a specific focus on separate regional workshops with local authority and food industry partners to raise awareness of food allergy requirements, and also on improving local authority data input to the Agency’s Food Fraud and UK Food Sample intelligence databases.

Guidance material 4.11 The following guidance material was issued in 2009:

• A section of the Agency website devoted to mycotoxins, which is intended to provide a consolidated resource for stakeholders and consumers, was launched in February 2010. The website is at: food.gov.uk/safereating/chemsafe/mycotoxins/,

• Guidance on food contact materials - The Agency published a ‘Guide to UK legal Compliance and Good practice for Business Documentation’ for Food Contact Materials and Articles. This guide is relevant to companies that, in the course of their business, manufacture and/or use materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, or that could be brought into contact with food or that could be the source of chemical migration into food. It is also relevant to environmental and port health and trading standards officers involved in the enforcement of the law governing these materials and articles. The Guide can be found at: food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/foodcontactmaterials2/legalcompliancefoodpackaging

• Guidance on egg production site inspections - UK-wide guidance for enforcement bodies on typical inspection points on egg production sites was published in February 2009. The guidance is available, alongside guidance notes for other sectors, at: food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes/. The guidance outlines areas that will be subject to inspection and the standards expected for producers to comply with the legislation as listed above. The document has been made available to all stakeholders, including egg producers, to help them to understand and to comply with legislation.

• Official Controls in approved meat establishments - The Manual for Official Controls (MOC) is a document that provides guidance to Operations Group (formerly MHS) field staff who perform Official Controls in approved slaughterhouses in England, Scotland and Wales. The MOC was amended

http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/chemsafe/mycotoxins/

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/foodcontactmaterials2/legalcompliancefoodpackaging

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/foodcontactmaterials2/legalcompliancefoodpackaging

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes/


Page 27

six times during 2009 to take account of operational feedback and to reflect changes in legislation and policy. A copy of the manual is available at: food.gov.uk/foodindustry/meat/mhservice/manual/ Equivalent guidance is available for Northern Ireland. A copy of the manual is available at: dardni.gov.uk/index/publications/pubs-dard-fisheries-farming-and-food.htm

• Home Kill Guidance - In June 2009 the Agency published guidance to provide information on the law covering the home killing of livestock. The Guide can be found at: food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/homeslaughterlivestockni.pdf food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/homekillguide09.pdf food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/homeslaughterlivestockwales.pdf food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/homeslaughterlivestockscot.pdf

• Guidance on authorisations for manufacturers is available from the VMD website www.vmd.gov.uk was updated in August 2009.

Defra support mechanisms

4.12 In order to ensure that a joined-up control procedure is adopted in the organic sector, there is regular liaison between Defra, the organic control bodies, the United Kingdom Organic Certification Group and United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). These groups are also represented, as stakeholders, on the Advisory Committee on Organic Standards. A representative of UKAS also attends meetings of the Advisory Committee on Organic Standards as necessary. The Beef Labelling Scheme inspectors and the Meat Technical Schemes Unit meet every quarter to discuss issues and ways of resolving them, and to highlight and discuss any new legislation coming into force.

4.13 The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has modified its beef labelling spreadsheet, which contains full details of approved licensed premises to visit, to a risk-based traffic light system that identifies the low, medium and high risk plants and ensures that premises which default consistently are targeted for inspection early in the tranche year by the Inspectors. RPA has also moved towards the completion of ‘electronic report forms’ and Inspectors have been trained to use the new forms. This has sped up the process and reduced the paperwork appreciably. The e-form can be easily amended/ updated as necessary and the latest versions can be installed with minimal disruption to the Inspector’s laptop.

Co-operation and co-ordination for official controls of imported feed and food 4.14 Measures to ensure close co-operation between the principal central authorities

and the local and port health authorities involved in carrying out import controls continued as described in paragraphs 4.20 and 4.21 of the NCP. The principal central authorities for imported food, the FSA, Department of Environment, Food

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/meat/mhservice/manual/

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/publications/pubs-dard-fisheries-farming-and-food.htm

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/homeslaughterlivestockni.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/homekillguide09.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/homeslaughterlivestockwales.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/homeslaughterlivestockscot.pdf

http://www.vmd.gov.uk/


Page 28

and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK Border Agency and Animal Health, met on a quarterly basis. These authorities and representatives of local and port health authorities met twice yearly in the Imported Food Working Group. The minutes of the meetings are published at food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/agency_work/ifwg/.

4.15 Developments during 2009 include:

• Imported Food Control Resource Pack – This provides guidance to local and port health authorities and was reviewed and updated. The revised Resource Pack is available at: food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/enforce_authorities/resourcepack

• Training – A further programme of training courses on imported food controls (including inland intermediate imported food training) was updated.

• Sampling and analysis of imported feed and food - The Imported Food Sampling Group met to co-ordinate food sampling activity for 2009/2010 and grants for additional sampling of imported food up to a total of £1,018,000 were made available to local and port health authorities. This was in addition to the authorities’ own sampling budgets. Grants were also available for controls on ‘high risk’ food of non-animal origin at points of entry, pending application under Article 15.5 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

• Web-based information - The dedicated section on imported food was updated. The website is at food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/

• A new version of the BIP manual was issued in April 2009 and incorporates changes to legislation since the last update. The BIP manual can be found at defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/animaltrade/imports/bips/pdf/bipmanual.pdf

• BIPs are kept up to date with changes to import controls via OVS Notes. Defra and the FSA issued 65 OVS Notes in 2009. They can be found at defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/animaltrade/imports/ovsnotes/index.htm

• BIP update training - Training courses were held in July and November 2009. Topics included cascade training from the “Better Training for Safer Food” courses held by the Commission. Training for Animal Health on imports of live animals takes place at the meetings of port health authority staff.

Cause for concern initiative for official controls in approved meat premises 4.16 Linking to a compliance and enforcement strategy developed by the MHS last

year, in October 2009 a system was introduced whereby letters are sent to food business operators of approved meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales that are considered a cause for concern on the basis of their most recent audit scores in relation to hygienic production, environmental hygiene and confidence in their food safety management (HACCP based) systems, and an analysis of trends in compliance. These food business operators are given the opportunity to work co-operatively with the FSA, raise the levels of compliance and bring standards to acceptable levels.

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/agency_work/ifwg/

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/enforce_authorities/resourcepack

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/animaltrade/imports/bips/pdf/bipmanual.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/animaltrade/imports/ovsnotes/index.htm


Page 29

4.17 Where a food business operator fails to put in place necessary measures, this

may lead to additional controls being introduced to ensure risks to public health are minimised. Where there is no improvement in compliance or standards, this will lead to the food business operator’s approval status being reviewed and approval being withdrawn or suspended. Guidance has been developed to assist field based staff with measures to improve food business operator compliance.

Pesticide residue monitoring 4.18 During 2009 the Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) held business meetings,

including an open business meeting. Details of the meetings, including agendas, minutes and papers are published on the internet at pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=734#2009.

Veterinary Residues Surveillance 4.19 The planning meeting for the 2010 UK National Residues Control Plan (NRCP)

was held on 11 September 2009 attended by representatives of the NRLs, major contractors, FSA, VRC and VMD. Four meetings of the independent Veterinary Residues Committee, attended by officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Food Standards Agency, were held during 2009. The Committee reviewed progress on the UK NRCP. Papers and minutes of the meetings are published at vet-residues-committee.gov.uk/. Meetings with individual contractors were held during the year.

4.20 The Head of the VMD’s Animal Medicines Inspectorate (AMI) sits on the Animal

Feed Law Enforcement Liaison Group (AFLELG) and its sub-group, the National Animal Feed Port Panel (NAFPP). AFLELG comprises representatives from central and local government who have responsibility for enforcing feedstuff legislation. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and details of AFLELG and NAFPP (including minutes of meetings) can be found at food.gov.uk/enforcement/enfcomm/aflelg/. In 2009, AFLELG met once and NAFPP met twice. Inspectors took part in regional meetings with Local Authority Feed Enforcement Officers and carried out joint inspections with Local Officers.

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=734#2009

http://www.vet-residues-committee.gov.uk/

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enfcomm/aflelg/


Page 30

Co-ordination and co-operation in the animal health and welfare sectors Liaison groups 4.21 As in the feed and food sectors, there are a number of liaison groups within the

animal health and welfare sectors that held meetings during 2009 which helped to contribute to achieving greater coordination and co-operation between the various competent authorities and other bodies that are responsible for undertaking official controls.

LACORS 4.22 The important partnership between LACORS, local authorities, Defra and the

Welsh Assembly Government has developed further during 2009 and further underpinned a greater understanding of each others needs and working practices. Most local authorities with responsibility for animal health and welfare in England and Wales adhere to the Framework Agreement27 for the delivery of services. The revised Framework introduced in April 2009 is now supported and enhanced in England by the National Indicator for Animal Health (No 190)28. Together they are encouraging an enhanced universal approach to animal health work and performance assessment and enabling authorities to understand the key national priorities of contingency planning, risk assessment, intelligence sharing and changing the behaviour of non-compliant businesses. At the same time, there is sufficient flexibility built in to allow authorities to respond to the particular needs of their local farming communities, whether these be bovine TB, poultry disease or supporting isolated rural areas.

Wales 4.23 Local authorities in Wales continue to work closely with the Office of the Chief

Veterinary Officer Wales. The national priorities set in 2008 (Sheep Scab and the TB Eradication programme) continued as part of the Framework during 2009 with improvements made in the consistency of enforcement and recording of breaches.

4.24 Welsh Assembly Government Officials are working with Welsh Local Authorities

to improve the targeting of inspections and prevent duplicate inspections. The Welsh Assembly Government shares its inspection lists and findings with Local Authorities across Wales so that they avoid visiting the same farms as Rural Inspectorate Wales (RIW). ‘Link’ officers in Local Authorities and the RIW have

27 defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/deliver/pdf/ahw-framework2009.pdf 28 defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/with/localgov/indicators/documents/n190-assess-guidance.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/deliver/pdf/ahw-framework2009.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/with/localgov/indicators/documents/n190-assess-guidance.pdf


Page 31

been appointed in 2009 and met bi-monthly to discuss inspection lists, enforcement issues and best practise.

National Animal Health and Welfare Panel 4.25 In addition to the Animal Health and Welfare Panel in Wales, a Red Tape Review

stakeholder group was set up in spring 2008 including representatives from the farming unions, Environment Agency, Food Standards Agency, local authorities and Farm Assured Schemes amongst others. The Group was formed to help identify opportunities to reduce bureaucracy within the farming industry in Wales, to prioritise the areas to be looked at and to deliver on these. One of the areas identified was combining inspections. As part of this work during 2009, central mailboxes were set up to make it easier for inspection organisations to co-ordinate on cross compliance issues. Work will continue in 2010 to encourage RIW and Animal Health inspectors to record inspection results on the AMES system, improving co-operation and sharing of information.

Scotland 4.26 In Scotland, the creation of the ‘Animal Health & Welfare Statutory Obligations

and Main Activity Areas for Local Authorities’ in 2009 (jointly developed by the Scottish Government, Animal Health and Welfare Division, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and other partner agencies) has further enhanced the close working relationship between all parties.

Training initiatives 4.27 Training in animal welfare on-farm, including welfare during transport, took place

at 7 Regional events across Great Britain during 2009. The programme included a review of animal welfare inspection procedures on farms and during transport, the new Animal Welfare Act29 and enforcement procedures, the role of Local Authorities in enforcement of animal welfare law, and a review of processes and procedures. In Northern Ireland two animal welfare training events were held in June 2009 for veterinary officers and technical staff. The training included a review of animal welfare inspection procedures on farm and the link between on farm procedures and Commission reporting requirements under Decision 2006/778/EC.

4.28 In Northern Ireland “An investigation and enforcement” training course, now

accredited at NQF Level 4 by the Open College Network, was delivered by local trainers assisted by a solicitor and a Trading Standards Officer. In total 14 members of Veterinary Service staff attended. The main topics of the course were how to implement Veterinary Service Enforcement policy, conduct investigations, understand animal health and welfare legislation, and the responsibilities involved in presenting evidence in Court.

29 Information about the Animal Welfare Act is available at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/act/index.htm.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/act/index.htm


Page 32

4.29 The DARD Strategic Board participated in a training exercise with health partners, Police Service in Northern Ireland and colleagues from Scottish Resilience in April 2009. The objectives were to familiarise the Strategic Board with emergency response structures within DARD and NI Civil Service and to develop improved external coordination with other key government departments in an emergency.

Other mechanisms 4.30 During 2009, regular meetings provided an interface between Defra and the main

bodies responsible for delivering animal health and welfare policy. These meetings confirmed that the delivery chain was working effectively on agreed priorities to deliver desired outcomes. Such activities were further supported from April 2009 by the introduction of the National Indicator for Animal Health (England). In addition, regular meetings between the Animal Health Regional and Divisional Offices and the local authorities (formalised in the new Framework Agreement) provided an excellent opportunity to review and promote best practice in an open forum.

4.31 In plant health, Fera, the devolved administrations and Crown dependencies,

along with the Forestry Commission, continued to hold biannual co-ordination meetings to discuss and report on the situation with various key issues.

4.32 For Bee health, there are regular contacts between policy, laboratory and

Inspection staff. The annual Bee Health Meeting involving stakeholders and other Government Departments has been replaced by the co-ordination arrangements to implement the Healthy Bees plan. This is aimed at protecting and improving the health of honeybees in England and Wales and will help determine priorities for the Bee Health Programme, associated research and will define responsibility for action on bee pests and diseases. Details available at: fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/beeHealth/documents/healthyBeePlan.pdf

4.33 In Scotland close working relationships have been developing between Scottish

Government and the stakeholders (Bee Farmers Association and Scottish Beekeepers Association). A 10 year Bee Health Strategy is being developed aimed at securing a sustainable and healthy population of honey bees. SGRD has been proactive in developing links with The National Bee Unit with a view to sharing expertise and knowledge base as well as information with regard to notifiable bee diseases in Scotland. Options of a sign up to Beebase30 for Scottish beekeepers is also being considered.

4.34 The National Bee Unit (NBU) and its inspectors have been pro-active in

promoting better husbandry techniques, disease recognition and control with the beekeeping industry. In 2009, the NBU carried out 510 talks (compared with 344 in 2008) and 322 practical demonstrations (362 in 2008). These include educational activities such as Integrated Varroa Management and Disease Recognition workshops.

30 secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/.

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/beeHealth/documents/healthyBeePlan.pdf

https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/


Page 33

Aquatic animal health co-ordination 4.35 The UK competent authorities worked hard to maintain the excellent working

relationship they have developed with businesses, customers/stakeholders and also partner agencies (including non-statutory angling organisations) in order to remain efficient and effective in their work, without imposing unnecessary burdens on those they regulate. In the past two years their working methodology has been significantly shaped and influenced by the introduction of the following new legislation:

• The Aquatic Animal Health (England & Wales) Regulations 200931 and parallel legislation in Scotland32 and Northern Ireland33.

• Regulators` Compliance Code 200834 • Regulatory Enforcement & Sanctions Act 2008.35

4.36 Preventing the illegal importation of live freshwater fish remains the UK top

priority. This situation will be enhanced with the introduction in 2010 of the new Crimestoppers initiative36 where the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) has teamed up with a number of its most influential partner agencies in order to sponsor this scheme. In addition the Fish Health Inspectorate have also introduced the National Intelligence Model37, a simple and straightforward system for using intelligence to prioritise and direct operational activity. The model ensures that information is fully researched, developed and analysed to provide intelligence that can be used to inform our strategic direction, make tactical resourcing decisions and manage risk.

Emergency and contingency planning Feed and food sectors Food Standards Agency 4.37 To improve the means by which the Agency prevents and responds to incidents,

five incident-handling workshops were organised in 2009 with local authorities to clarify roles and responsibilities and strengthen working relationships. Similar workshops are also planned for 2010. The Agency reviewed its communications with local authorities during incidents and, as a result, is changing its procedures

31 opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20090463_en_1 32 opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2009/ssi_20090085_en_1 33 opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2009/nisr_20090129_en_1 34 defra.gov.uk/corporate/policy/regulat/documents/cefas-compliance.pdf 35 opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/pdf/ukpga_20080013_en.pdf 36 cefas.co.uk/news-and-events/news-releases/news-releases-2010/new-crimestoppers-partnership-to-fight-illegal-

importing-activity.aspx 37 efishbusiness.co.uk/formsandguides/FHI-Enforcement-Strategic-Plan-2010-2013.pdf

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20090463_en_1

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2009/ssi_20090085_en_1

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2009/nisr_20090129_en_1

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/policy/regulat/documents/cefas-compliance.pdf

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/pdf/ukpga_20080013_en.pdf

http://www.cefas.co.uk/news-and-events/news-releases/news-releases-2010/new-crimestoppers-partnership-to-fight-illegal-importing-activity.aspx

http://www.cefas.co.uk/news-and-events/news-releases/news-releases-2010/new-crimestoppers-partnership-to-fight-illegal-importing-activity.aspx

http://www.efishbusiness.co.uk/formsandguides/FHI-Enforcement-Strategic-Plan-2010-2013.pdf


Page 34

regarding food alerts. The changes aim to increase the Agency's response time, reduce the number of alerts issued to local authorities, and address concerns of some parts of the food industry over the terminology that has previously been used.

Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) 4.38 MHS contingency planning processes for notifiable disease as documented in

the MHS Manual for Official Controls, are reviewed on a regular basis. A specific contingency plan for Foot and Mouth Disease is currently in the final drafting stage and will be published before the end of 2010. During 2009 contingency plans for monitoring the effects of adverse weather and industrial action by contractor staff were approved. Lessons learnt are embedded into the revised contingency plans. All plans are reviewed every six months and elements of the plans tested on an annual basis.

Animal health and welfare sectors 4.39 Great Britain has the status of a single epidemiological zone. A co-ordinated

disease control approach will therefore be taken across Great Britain to an outbreak of an exotic notifiable animal disease. A single unified Agency (Animal Health) with responsibility for delivering Government’s operational response has provided input to the English, Scottish and Welsh Contingency plans. Animal Health exercises these plans locally, regionally and nationally with all partners.

4.40 Planning for the next Great Britain-wide exercise to test the Government’s

contingency plans commenced during 2009, with a real-time simulation exercise planned for November 2010. A national level tabletop exercise to test the African Horse Sickness control strategy was undertaken in December 2009. In addition, during 2009, each Animal Health Office carried out or participated in at least one local exercise as part of the Animal Health’s local and regional exercise programme to examine disease scenarios, test local contingency plans and make sure that local operational partners and industry representatives were fully involved.

England 4.41 Neither Defra nor Devolved Administrations in Great Britain needed to deploy

their contingency plans during 2009 although a number of suspected cases were investigated during the year. In addition, Defra continues to manage the ongoing disease threat posed by the current outbreak of Bluetongue (BTV-8) and successfully facilitated a major programme of vaccination.

4.42 Defra’s Contingency Plan for Exotic Animal Diseases, which is reviewed

annually, is produced for the Department by the Animal Health agency. Defra's revised Contingency Plan for Exotic Animal Diseases was issued for public consultation during the summer and laid before Parliament on 12 December


Page 35

2009.38 The Plan was amended to reflect the lessons identified from previous outbreaks and incidents and from the national programme of exercises.

Scotland 4.43 Scottish Government has consolidated its existing exotic disease contingency

plans into a single generic contingency framework plan. Control responses to specific exotic diseases have been appended as annexes. The work was published in January 2010. The new generic plan supports a rapid and flexible approach to the containment, control and eradication of exotic disease outbreaks within Scotland. The Scottish Government's Exotic Animal Disease Communications Strategy, which complements the framework plan has also been reviewed to reflect the updated framework plan and to build upon experience and lessons from recent incidents. These plans are available at: scotland.gov.uk/ahwcontingencyplans

Wales 4.44 The Welsh Assembly Government, following annual review republished

contingency plans in March 2009. The Welsh Assembly Government Framework Response Plan for Exotic Animal Diseases and the Welsh Assembly Government Overview of Emergency Preparedness for Exotic Animal Diseases complement the plans for Great Britain produced by Defra and incorporated lessons learned from dealing with outbreaks. After a further review the plans were republished in April 201039.

4.45 Throughout 2009, all three Animal Health offices in Wales ran exercises aimed at

testing their operational response to various exotic animal diseases. The exercises included policy input from the Welsh Assembly Government and representation from partner organisations such as the Police and Local Authorities.

Northern Ireland 4.46 During 2009, DARD Veterinary Service successfully activated elements of the

contingency plan for epizootic disease40 through the Northern Ireland response to the 2008 Dioxin-contamination of pork incident. A local control centre was put in place in order to manage animal collection and culling. FVO auditors have endorsed the operational controls carried out (Conformity Clearance under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/200541) during their inspection in December 2009.

38 defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/control/contingency-plan.htm 39 wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/exoticdisease/;jsessionid=zRSnMT1dL1kLPjv1CXqMrws1Lnj6QsMLNPgnplRtvLZh7dhTZyGW!-

309001812?lang=en&ts=1&status=open 40 dardni.gov.uk/index/animal-health/cped.htm 41 Commission Regulation (EC) No1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy. Official Journal L

209, 11.8.2005, 1–25

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ahwcontingencyplans

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/control/contingency-plan.htm

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/exoticdisease/;jsessionid=zRSnMT1dL1kLPjv1CXqMrws1Lnj6QsMLNPgnplRtvLZh7dhTZyGW!-309001812?lang=en&ts=1&status=open

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/exoticdisease/;jsessionid=zRSnMT1dL1kLPjv1CXqMrws1Lnj6QsMLNPgnplRtvLZh7dhTZyGW!-309001812?lang=en&ts=1&status=open

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/animal-health/cped.htm


Page 36

4.47 DARD also tested their contingency plan during a strategic-level exercise involving outside agencies such as Police Service for Northern Ireland, Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and Scottish Resilience. In addition, three operational exercises were carried out; two relating to procedures for Avian Influenza and one involving Rabies preparedness. Lessons identified have been incorporated into amended response protocols.

Aquatic animal health 4.48 The new Aquatic Animal Health Directive 2006/88/EC42 that replaced the existing

legislation on fish and shellfish diseases requires the publication of contingency plans for exotic aquatic animal diseases. Existing contingency plans were subject to further review and amendment to ensure that the operational plans developed by the delivery agencies interact with the national contingency plans held by Defra. Operational plans are subject to annual review to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Bee health 4.49 Three simulation exercises were conducted. A surveillance programme for exotic

pests was completed in identified ‘at risk’ apiaries. In Scotland an emergency response was required following extensive findings of outbreaks of European foulbrood.

Plant health 4.50 Following earlier years’ activity the campaign continued in 2009 to try to

eradicate Oak Processionary Moth (OPM) (Thaumetopoea processionea) in south-west London, given the threats presented by this pest which is native to central and southern Europe. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) considered and agreed that this pest met the definition of a plant pest.

4.51 Adult male Pine-tree Lappet moths (Dendrolimus pini) were trapped in a forest location near to Inverness in July 2008 and the Forestry Commission has implemented its Contingency Plan for this pest to determine whether there is an established population and, if so, how best to deal with it. This involved surveys for overwintering larvae in December to be followed by more surveys and the deployment of traps for larvae and moths in the spring and summer, respectively, in 2009. This work resulted in recovery of the first larvae and detection of a vacated pupal nest thus confirming that a breeding population has established. Research is continuing to try to determine the origin and potential for this to become damaging, which will inform decisions on the measures to be taken.

42 Council Directive 2006/88/EC on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and

on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals. Official Journal L 328, 24.11.2006, 14-56.


Page 37

Working across the EU Feed and food 4.52 The Food Standards Agency is the designated liaison body in the UK for the

purposes of Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and, as such, is responsible for assisting and co-ordinating communication between competent authorities and the transmission and reception of requests for assistance. In 2009 the major categories of cases dealt with were: Labelling irregularities (36); physical/microbiological contamination (27) and others (6). In each case, details of the complaint were forwarded to the relevant authority, investigation/ inspection was undertaken where appropriate and reports provided back to the originating authority and appropriate enforcement action taken where necessary. All cases were logged on the FSA’s Incidents Database.

4.53 Following difficulties relating to compliance with maximum levels for zearalenone

in high-bran breakfast cereals due to adverse weather conditions during harvesting, the FSA conducted a risk assessment to ensure that a temporary increase to the maximum level did not compromise consumer safety and thus assisted the European Commission’s Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in concluding that such a temporary derogation would be appropriate. Letters were sent to enforcement authorities and stakeholders to keep them informed and advised.


Page 38

Chapter 5 - Raising standards and sharing good practice: what was achieved in 2009? Background 5.1 The UK National Control Plan (NCP) sets out how the performance of the

competent authorities responsible for official controls is assessed through audit and other mechanisms in order to verify that they are providing an effective and consistent service. It highlights where audit systems have been established and where systems are still being developed. Where systems are in place, details of the audits that took place during 2009 are reported in this Chapter. Progress on establishing arrangements for the audit of other authorities is also reported. In addition, information is provided in respect of missions undertaken to the UK in 2009 by the European Commission's inspection services, the FVO.

Feed and food sectors Official controls for which the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is responsible at central Government level Annual reporting 5.2 The FSA has collected and published data for the first return (April 2008 - March

09) under the new local authority (LA) audit/reporting programme (LAEMS). The data and details of LA audit activity were reported in March 2010 to the FSA Board. Primary analyses43 show that: • LAs carried out a total of 525,009 interventions at food establishments. This

was a slight reduction on previous years, however, • Interventions at higher risk category establishments have been prioritised; • 86% of UK establishments inspected for food hygiene were at a level

equivalent to the top three tiers of the national food hygiene rating scheme44; • LAs carried out over 167,000 formal enforcement actions, with a notable

increase from previous years in certain types of formal legal action.

43 Full details of which are available from: food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa100309v3.pdf (UK LA Food Law

Enforcement Report 2008/09), and food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/mondatabyyear/ocd200809/ (Monitoring and outcomes data).

44 Information on Scores on the Doors scheme is at food.gov.uk/safereating/hyg/scoresonthedoors/

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa100309v3.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/mondatabyyear/ocd200809/

http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/hyg/scoresonthedoors/


Page 39

A joint working group with LAs and LACORS has been established to consider the LAEMS data, and to inform future enforcement approaches and delivery. Local and port health authorities 5.3 Arrangements for the assessment of local authority feed and food law regulatory

services by the FSA have been in place since April 2001. Authorities are audited against the 'the Standard' in the Framework Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement,45

which sets out the minimum standards of performance expected across the range of feed and food law regulatory activities. Consultation on a draft updating of the Framework Agreement was published in October 2008, for comments by local authorities46. The aim of the review was to update the Agreement in line with other changes to audit, the Food Law Code of Practice and monitoring arrangements. This has since been finalised and published47.

5.4 The audit scheme is implemented on a UK basis, with the FSA in England,

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each co-ordinating their own audit programmes. Details of the 2009 programmes are given in Table 5.1.

5.5 Individual audit reports and related local authority action plans are published on

the FSA website. Audit programme summary reports are compiled, where appropriate, and also published. These analyse and identify wider policy issues and trends for consideration by relevant central competent authorities, local authorities and their representative groups. All reports can be found at: food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/auditreports/

5.6 Although the various audit programmes identified a number and range of issues

for further action, all recommendations were accepted by the relevant authorities and appropriate corrective actions agreed. Follow-up audit verification checks ensured that agreed actions were prioritised appropriately and remedial actions implemented within acceptable timescales.

5.7 One of the key stated aims of the FSA audit process is to identify and

disseminate good practice. Good practice identified during audit programmes is published on the LACORS48 website and disseminated through FSA regional update meetings and other LA seminars and training courses.

5.8 Following earlier audit review and UK consultation, the FSA continued

development of UK audit policy and implementation of revised audit processes, to: incorporate ‘reality checks’ at food establishments as a more routine component of individual audits of competent authorities; improve pre-audit intelligence and data gathering and analysis; utilise this information to enhance

45 The Framework Agreement is available at: food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/frameagree/ 46 More information is available at: food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/enfe08066.pdf 47 More information is available at: food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/frameworkagreementno5.pdf 48 lacors.gov.uk/lacors/home.aspx

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/auditreports/

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/frameagree/

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/enfe08066.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/frameworkagreementno5.pdf

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/home.aspx


Page 40

risk-based audit scoping, select competent authorities for audit and audit effectiveness; achieve a greater focus on the monitoring and audit of outcomes from the delivery of official controls and enforcement in food establishments; and to support and encourage enhanced monitoring and peer review at the local competent authority level (‘internal audit’) and to complement and inform the central ‘external’ audit function.


Page 41

Table 5.1: FSA Audit of Competent Authorities (‘local authorities’ and Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD)) during 2009 Programme Dates Number of

authorities/ DARD Units

Number of establishment ‘reality checks’

Final report(s) issued/published/due

ENGLAND

Audit of local authority official controls and food business operator controls in approved establishments

January to April

11 11 Final reports can be found at: food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/auditreports/

Audit of service delivery and food business compliance

May to July 11 11 Final reports can be found at: food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/auditreports/

Evaluation of inter authority audit and peer review processes

September to December

34 9 A Summary report can be found at: food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/auditreports/auditfocus/interauthoritypeerreview/

Follow-up audits When due

SCOTLAND Audit of local authority official controls and food business operator controls in approved establishments

February to May

15 30 Final reports can be found at: food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/approvalauditscotland2009.pdf

Follow-up audits July 1 0

WALES Audit of local authority official controls and food business operator controls in approved establishments

September to December

5 10 Final reports have been issued to all 5

NORTHERN IRELAND Audit of delivery of official controls by DARD Quality Assurance Branch in respect of animal feed establishments in Northern Ireland

March to May

1 4 Final Report issued January 2010

Audit of DARD Veterinary Service –Veterinary Public Health Unit enforcement of official controls in approved meat establishments

June to July 1 6 6 individual establishment final reports issued Summary report – to be issued



http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/auditreports/auditfocus/interauthoritypeerreview/

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/auditreports/auditfocus/interauthoritypeerreview/

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/approvalauditscotland2009.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/approvalauditscotland2009.pdf


Page 42

Scope and objectives of Meat Hygiene Service Internal Audits 5.9 Internal Veterinary Auditors carried out routine audits in approved establishments

in order to assess and report on the effectiveness of arrangements and procedures established by the MHS to ensure operator compliance with relevant legislative requirements. Instructions and guidance for MHS teams working in approved establishments were contained in the Manual for Official Controls and various policy documents, which together provide the standards against which performance of MHS teams was measured.

5.10 During 2009, seven targeted audits were undertaken. Each audit is now

designed to examine a specific policy or theme and covers development and implementation of procedures, their application at a randomly selected sample of establishments and management monitoring, reporting and review arrangements. One high level report is then issued for each audit including prioritised recommendations and agreed timescales for implementation, aimed at addressing root causes.

5.11 For each audit, an overall audit opinion is also given based on an assessment of

the effectiveness of the policy audited, and hence assurance that the policy is meeting the objectives that it has been designed to achieve. Three levels of audit assurance opinion are used, Substantial, Limited and Poor. Audits with a “Poor” assurance opinion are followed up within 12 months of the report being issued.

5.12 The current status of each of the audits planned for the year and progress on

implementation of agreed recommendations were reported to the MHS Senior Management Team and the FSA/MHS Audit Committee quarterly. The Audit Committee is made up of five non-executive members of the FSA Board.

Audit work and findings 5.13 Seven audits were carried out between January and December 2009 involving

visits to 13149 approved establishments. Table 5.2 below shows the audit opinion and number of recommendations for each audit. Implementation of the new management team and structure for the delivery of official controls continued during the year. Internal audits indicated that these had started to have a positive impact on the implementation of enforcement policy. There had also been notable improvements in the arrangements for ongoing management monitoring of delivery of official controls. Communication of routine amendments to guidance for staff in establishments has continued to be satisfactory. However, the audits highlighted the need for improvements in communication of project specific guidance. Overall, management were increasingly proactive in responding to audit recommendations during the year.

49 This is not the same as the aggregate number of establishments in the table as some establishment visits

involved two separate audits.


Page 43

Table 5.2: MHS audits of approved establishments in 2009

Audit

Audit Assurance Opinion

Number of establishments

Number of Recommendations

HACCP Follow up N/A (Audit opinions are not provided for follow up audits)

17 7

Post-mortem inspection and collection and communication of inspection results

Limited 24 5

Assessment of the implementation of the MHS enforcement policy and procedures

Limited 20 4

New TSE rules for over-30 month and over-48 month bovines

Substantial 21 2

Technical advice to support official and lead veterinarians

Limited 20 5

MHS Tuberculosis sampling and submission trials

Substantial 5 3

Step 3 Changes to SRM controls Limited 24 6

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Veterinary Service - Veterinary Public Health Unit (VS-VPHU) 5.14 In Northern Ireland, the MHS role is provided on behalf of the FSA by DARD's

VS-VPHU. As with the MHS, the FSA undertake audit of the service and the VS-VPHU has an internal audit system in place.

Progress towards establishing arrangements for other authorities 5.15 As regards other areas for which the FSA has direct responsibility for official

control functions, and other authorities that undertake controls on the FSA's behalf, audit arrangements are still being developed. Progress made in 2009 is indicated in Table 5.3.

Official laboratories designated by the Food Standards Agency 5.16 All official control laboratories designated by the FSA are required to be

accredited and audited by United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS - the designated National Accreditation Agency for the UK). In the event that UKAS audit identifies any serious non-compliances with agreed performance and accreditation standards, this is reported to the FSA. In 2009 no such non-compliances were reported.


Page 44

Table 5.3: Progress towards establishing audit arrangements for authorities undertaking controls on behalf of the FSA Competent authority

Control activity Progress

FSA Approval & inspection of food irradiation facilities

There is one facility authorised to irradiate food in the UK. This facility was originally scheduled to be inspected late in 2008, but as the facility has not processed any food since the last inspection in 2006, it was deemed to be a low risk. Due to the revision of the food irradiation regulations in 2009 (The Food Irradiation (England) Regulations 200950), it was decided to delay the inspection, and associated audit, until after these new regulations came into force.

FSA Designation & classification of shellfish harvesting areas

As regards England and Wales, audit regimes are yet to be established.

FSA Recognition of non-EEA natural mineral waters

Work on establishing an audit system for recognition of third country natural mineral waters in the UK continued in 2009. There is currently no routine audit programme in place but there has been an audit of third country recognitions and a draft report produced in April 2010, which is currently under consideration. This first audit of our work will be used as an opportunity to review the systems in place for assessment and identify areas for improvement.

AH(DH) Hygiene controls at milk production holdings

Further to the pilot audit carried out in 2007, a follow up audit was undertaken in July 2009 to review the recommendations that had been raised in the pilot audit. In the interim period Animal Health Dairy Hygiene had undergone a significant reorganisation and new operating procedures were being introduced. The audit showed that a number of recommendations had been incorporated into the new procedures and of those that remained action was in hand by the new regime.

Egg Marketing Inspectorate (EMI)/ Scottish Government's Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (SGRPID)

Hygiene controls at egg production units

These controls are carried out, on behalf of the FSA, by the EMI in England and Wales, SGRPID in Scotland, and DARD QAB in Northern Ireland. As regards England and Wales, audit regimes have not yet been established.

Control bodies

5.17 In England and Wales, a statutory programme of sampling and testing of raw

cows' drinking milk is carried out on behalf of the FSA by Eclipse Scientific Ltd.

50 SI 2009/1584


Page 45

The particular sites which carry out testing of raw cows' drinking milk are audited yearly by UKAS. The outcome of the audit carried out in 2009 was satisfactory.

Official controls for which the Agriculture/Rural Affairs Departments are responsible at central Government level 5.18 In those areas where Defra and the Agriculture/Rural Affairs Departments in the

Devolved Administrations are responsible for legislation, there is an established system in place for the inspection of Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) by AH and DARD Veterinary Service. Details of inspections undertaken in 2009 are provided in para 5.21. For Defra's other official control functions, its Internal Audit Unit is developing an audit strategy and progress on this is also outlined.

Veterinary Medicines Residues Monitoring 5.19 Following the audits of the Animal Health Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service

in 2008, meetings have been held with both Agencies. The recommendations have been implemented. There were no audits in 2009.

Animal Medicines Inspectorate (AMI) 5.20 The last audit carried out on the AMI was in March 2008 by the independent

auditors, RSM Bentley Jennison. Future audit arrangements are included in the VMD’s long term internal audit arrangement with RSM Tenon (previously RSM Bentley Jennison). The VMD anticipates carrying out the next audit of the AMI in 2013.

Border inspection posts (BIPs) 5.21 Animal Health is responsible for the evaluation of BIP facilities, documentation

and procedures in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, the DARD Veterinary Service undertakes these functions. Arrangements and guidance for carrying out inspections has been provided to Senior Animal Health Officers and lead Veterinary Officers via Animal Health’s Operations manual. During 2009 a total of 65 visits were carried out in the UK. All BIPs were inspected at least once in 2009. These visits identified some deficiencies in the controls, structure and facilities in some BIPs. In most cases, action to correct these deficiencies has been taken or is underway however one border inspection post was suspended by the Scottish Government as the BIP operator failed to correct several deficiencies.

Development of audit strategy 5.22 Defra’s Internal Audit Unit is continuing to work with Feed and Food policy

colleagues on what audit arrangements are in place, how the core department can be assured that audit work is compliant with Regulation (EC) 882/2004 and


Page 46

how to ensure the results of this work is reported. It covers the control activities listed below:

• Organisation of protected food names scheme • Organisation of beef labelling scheme • Overseeing system for certification of organic produce.

Chemicals Regulation Directorate 5.23 The report for 2008 highlighted that with the move to a new organisational

structure, CRD were in the process of formulating their audit requirements. For 2009, the proposal that Health and Safety Executive (HSE) internal auditors would be involved in the future audit arrangements of CRD remained the same.

5.24 HSE is subject to an annual external audit by the National Audit Office. It also

has an independent internal audit function - Internal Audit (IA) based in Redgrave Court, Bootle - providing assurance to the Accounting Officer of HSE on the effectiveness of their: risk management; control; and governance processes. IA has a mandatory requirement to adopt and comply with the Government Internal Audit Standards (GIAS). The Standards are based on the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (international standards) issued by the Internal Audit Standards Board of The Institute of Internal Auditors. IA is subject to internal and external quality assurance and improvement reviews to check compliance with GIAS. IA also has its own peer review arrangements. An audit plan is set each year. Documented audit procedures are in place. All audits are followed up as a matter of routine and progress of implementing recommendations monitored and reported to the Audit Committee.

Control bodies 5.25 Defra and its agencies employ control bodies: for the collection of samples for

residue monitoring and surveillance programmes; to certify organic produce, to verify protected food name; and to verify claims under Defra's 'Beef Labelling Scheme'. Arrangements are in place through contracts or Service Level Agreements to ensure conditions and standards of performance are met. Details of audits/inspections during 2009 are given in Table 5.4.


Page 47

Table 5.4: Summary of audits/inspections of control bodies designated by Defra and HSE to carry out feed and food control activities covered out in 2009

Control body

Control tasks Progress

Mintel International Group Ltd, FERA, Rural Payments Agency

Sample collection for pesticide residues surveillance on behalf of CRD

HSE is exploring audit requirements for 2010 onwards.

LGC Ltd AFBI FERA Eurofins SASA

Official laboratories used in the pesticide residue monitoring process on behalf of CRD

All the laboratories are audited by the independent body UKAS which is sufficiently detailed to cover obligations for audit.

LGC Ltd Analysis of statutory veterinary residue surveillance samples on behalf of VMD

The VMD audits LGC using independent auditors. Audits include the suitability of maintenance of facilities and equipment. The last audit was in July 2009, and included the Director of the RIVM EU Reference Laboratory as a technical adviser. The laboratory demonstrated sound knowledge and competence of the areas assessed during the visit, this competence was supported by the good results achieved in the external exchange and Proficiency Testing (PT) schemes. United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) / VMD conclude that the requirements of accreditation and customer contract are understood and adhered to. Some non-conformities have been raised during the assessment, these were generally minor and improvement actions have been implemented.

Government recognised independent verifiers51

Verifying claims under the Beef Labelling Scheme (as required by EC Regulation 1760/2000)52

United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) - checked that the five control bodies’ certified by UKAS in 2009 understood and adhered to requirements. The two smaller verifiers, who are audited by RPA, demonstrated that their controls and procedures were of an equivalent standard to those laid down in European Standard EN 45011.

Approved private organic inspection bodies53

Control and certification of organic production (as required by Council Regulation 834/2007)54

UKAS visited all organic control bodies operating in the UK in 2009 to verify compliance with EN45011 and to assess their compliance with the control requirements of Council Regulation 834/2007. No serious issues were found in the operation of the control bodies’ audit/ inspection arrangements.

51 A list of these bodies is available at:

rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/UIMenu/41311AACB782A973802574AC0033BDA1?Opendocument 52 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a system for the

identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97. Official Journal L 204, 11.8.2000, 1-10.

53 A list of these bodies is available at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/growing/organic/standards/index.htm

http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/UIMenu/41311AACB782A973802574AC0033BDA1?Opendocument

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/growing/organic/standards/index.htm


Page 48

Control body


Private and public inspection bodies

Ensuring that producers of registered protected food names are complying with the registered specification for those products (as required by Council Regulations 509/2006 and 510/2006)55 56

Private inspection bodies are independently accredited and audited by UKAS against European Standard EN 45011 or ISO 65. UKAS maintains a record of those private inspection bodies which have the required accreditation. However, UKAS has no specific audit programme with respect to those bodies. This is something which we are discussing with UKAS. We are planning to publish more information on our protected food name web pages relating to the inspection process and the respective responsibilities of the UK control bodies and their contact details.

Public bodies and Trading Standards Officers)57

Ensuring that producers of registered protected food names are complying with the registered specification for those products (as required by Council Regulations 509/2006 and 510/2006)58 59

Defra is responsible for ensuring that those bodies are complying with the principles of the EN 45011 Standard or ISO 65. We are planning to publish more information on our protected food name web pages relating to the inspection process and the respective responsibilities of the UK control bodies and their contact details.

LGC Laboratory Edinburgh

BSE testing Audited by National Reference Laboratory (NRL) for TSE against published criteria defra.gov.uk/vla/services/docs/ser_bse_criteria.pdf NRL found a safety/security issue with lab entry that has subsequently been rectified by LGC management. Otherwise meeting all requirements.

LGC Exeter Laboratory

BSE testing Inspected by NRL for TSE in consideration of published criteria defra.gov.uk/vla/services/docs/ser_bse_criteria.pdf NRL had significant issues with sampling and Laboratory Management practises. Following reports, re-training given by NRL staff, LGC staff changes and a follow-up inspection NRL are reassured of LGC control of their procedures and testing.

54 Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on organic production and labelling

of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Official Journal L 189, 20.7.2007, 1–23. 55 Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities

guaranteed. Official Journal L 93, 31.3.2006, 1-11. 56 Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for

agricultural products and foodstuffs. Official Journal L93, 31.3.2006, 12-25. 57 Defra website is being revamped with the aim of including more information about the inspection process, role of

control bodies and its own role. This will include a list of the UK control bodies and their contact details. Currently information can be found at ec.europa.eu/agriculture/foodqual/quali1_en.htm

58 Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed. Official Journal L 93, 31.3.2006, 1-11.

59 Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Official Journal L93, 31.3.2006, 12-25.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/services/docs/ser_bse_criteria.pdf


http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/foodqual/quali1_en.htm


Page 49

Control body


IdentiGEN Ltd Newport Laboratory

BSE testing Audited by NRL for TSE against published criteria defra.gov.uk/vla/services/docs/ser_bse_criteria.pdf The facility complied with all testing requirements and the NRL is reassured that the laboratory is working effectively under current laboratory supervision, which has changed during the past year.

LGC Runcorn Laboratory

BSE testing Inspected by NRL for TSE in consideration of published criteria defra.gov.uk/vla/services/docs/ser_bse_criteria.pdf NRL found inconsistencies between sampling practice and test kit instructions for use. LGC have subsequently revised their standard operating procedures and sampling in all sites now conforms to that described. LGC Runcorn continues to be a competent testing facility.

FVO missions undertaken in 2009 5.26 Five FVO missions took place in 2009, in the context of a general audit, to

assess the effectiveness of official controls relevant to the feed and food sectors - see Table 5.5. The reports of these missions are published on the Commission website, together with the UK response to the recommendations made (web-links are given in the Table 5.5).

Table 5.5: Summary of FVO missions in 2009 to assess the effectiveness of official feed and food

controls in the UK

Control activities Report/UK response UK controls of residues and contaminants and the use of veterinary medicinal products in food producing animals (MR 2009/8128)

Report: ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2237 UK response: ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_the_united_kingdom_8128_2009.pdf

UK controls for food additives and food contact materials (MR 2009/8170)

Report: ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2390 UK response: ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_gb_2009-8170.pdf

UK controls for pesticide residues in and on food of plant origin (MR 2009/8153)


To evaluate the follow-up action taken by UK competent authorities with regard to controls related to the safety of food of animal origin, in particular meat, milk and their products (MR 2009/8225)




http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2237

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_the_united_kingdom_8128_2009.pdf


http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_gb_2009-8170.pdf






Page 50

Control activities Report/UK response UK controls of feed (MR 2009/8092)

Report: ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2335 UK response: ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_gb_2009-8092.pdf

5.27 The recommendations made during these missions have been undertaken or are

being addressed as discussed with the FVO. Animal health and welfare sectors England 5.28 The planned project to implement official controls audit provision across Defra

and its Agencies has been shelved because the delivery landscape had changed since the project was envisaged. After discussions between Defra Internal Audit (DIA) and Policy it was decided that the best way to progress was to follow a risk-based approach by targeting areas where little or no official control assurance was in place. Therefore to progress in 2010 DIA will complete a review to identify the level of official controls audit provision across relevant areas of the Defra network. On completion of the review DIA will make recommendations to Defra senior management to strengthen assurance arrangements where required.

Wales 5.29 The Welsh Assembly Government have an audit strategy that covers the period

up to 2011. The strategy is reviewed annually based on a risk assessment undertaken in accordance with the Welsh Assembly Government Risk Management Framework.

5.30 Within the 2008/09 audit plan the Corporate Governance and Assurance (CG&A)

Division of the Welsh Assembly Government carried out one audit on "Wildlife Licences " under the Council Directive 79/409/EEC . A limited assurance rating was given. Management has accepted audit findings and put in place an action plan to implement the recommendations by the end of 2009.

Scotland 5.31 In Scottish Government’s Internal Audit Division (IAD) have a five year audit

strategy that covers the period up to 2012. Within 2008/09 IAD carried out an initial overarching scoping study across the areas for which the Scottish Government, as a competent authority, has responsibility. The purpose for this initial review was to allow IAD to gain a better understanding of the framework of




Page 51

controls in place given the complexities of in particular, the animal health and welfare controls procedures in Scotland.

5.32 The majority of the work for this scoping study was carried out in February and

March 2009. However, due to the restructuring of the Division, where responsibility for the co-ordination of official controls lay, there was a delay in the finalisation of the audit. The report has now been finalised and the recommendations made by IAD have been accepted and are in the process of being implemented.

Northern Ireland 5.33 During 2009 DARD Internal Audit Branch (IAB) continued with the

implementation of their audit strategy covering the audit arrangements for animal health and welfare controls for which DARD are responsible. During the year IAB have completed 8 audits with only 1 unsatisfactory opinion. Audits fieldwork covered the following areas: • Fisheries Inspectorate - a limited assurance rating was given. To date 12 out

of 21 recommendations have been implemented and management has provided assurance that the remaining actions are on-going. A follow-up review was scheduled for May 2010.

• Veterinary Service Controls - The audit fieldwork was carried out in the following areas: Brucellosis prevention and control, animal welfare, use/misuse of animal medicines, Animal and Public Health Information System (APHIS60)/IRM, contingency arrangements, and implementation of previously agreed IAB recommendations for Veterinary Service. In most cases satisfactory opinions were given. In a case where the weak opinion was given, management have provided assurance that corrective action is being taken and a follow-up review has been scheduled.

• IAB were also involved in the contingency exercise Yellow Hammer which took place on 11 November 2009 with a final report issued on 8 January 2010. The exercise was to test the contingency plan in the event of an outbreak of Avian Influenza. IAB provided a satisfactory opinion and were content that management have developed an effective contingency plan, which includes functional operating systems and procedures for dealing with an outbreak of epizootic disease. The exercise demonstrated that an adequate state of readiness existed within the Department for handling such an outbreak. Established policies and procedures and the arrangements for their implementation were found to be effective. 16 recommendations were made and accepted by management; their implementation is currently on-going.

60 APHIS is a computerised database for recording cattle registration, deaths, movements, disease and post mortem

data. This programme also supports TB, Brucellosis, BSE and EBL control programmes


Page 52

Control bodies 5.34 In the area of animal health most control bodies employed by Defra and its

agencies are: • private laboratories undertaking diagnostic analysis in relation to animal

health controls; and • various commercial carrier companies undertaking the basic checks required

to ensure that animals entering the UK under Pet Travel Scheme61 comply with the law.

Arrangements are in place through contracts or Service Level Agreements between the competent authority and the controls bodies to ensure conditions and standards of performance are met. Details of audits/inspections of control bodies during 2009 are given in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Audits/inspections of control bodies in relation to animal health controls during 2009

Control body Control tasks Progress

Orchid Cellmark Ltd62

Scrapie genotyping service under contract to Defra in support of GB Voluntary Scrapie Flocks Scheme (VSFS) and the Compulsory Scrapie Flocks Scheme (CSFS)63, and separately to DARD for the Northern Ireland 64 Scrapie Plan

• July 2009 - ISO 17025:2005 audit by UKAS: a surveillance assessment of Cellmark’s entire scope of accreditation and management systems. Several improvement actions, observations and recommendations made, of which only one related directly to the scrapie genotyping service.

• October 2009 - ISO 9001:2000 audit by SGS UK Ltd65.

• Improvements were implemented within the specified timeframe with evidence of satisfactory completion.

• Overall UKAS and SGS adjudged the systems in place at Cellmark to manage conformity with the required standards for testing to be effective, efficient and robust and continued accreditation was recommended and granted following the audits.

• Throughout 2009 Cellmark participated in DEFRA’s proficiency testing scheme where the Veterinary Laboratories Agency submitted blind samples of known genotypes every month. All proficiency samples were genotyped correctly.

61 Details of the UK Pet Travel Scheme, approved commercial transport carrier companies, routes and countries are

available at: defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/travel/pets/index.htm 62 The most recent issue of the schedule of accreditation to ISO 17025:2005 is available on the UKAS website at

www.ukas.org (testing laboratory no.2045) 63 Information on the CSFS is available at defra.gov.uk/animalhealth/managing-disease/NSPAC/schemes/csfs.htm 64 Information on the Northern Ireland Scrapie plan is available at: dardni.gov.uk/index/animal-health/animal-

diseases/bse/scrapie-introduction/northern-ireland-scrapie-plan.htm 65 Information about SGS is available at: quality-register.co.uk/bodies/body38.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/travel/pets/index.htm

http://www.ukas.org/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalhealth/managing-disease/NSPAC/schemes/csfs.htm

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/animal-health/animal-diseases/bse/scrapie-introduction/northern-ireland-scrapie-plan.htm

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/animal-health/animal-diseases/bse/scrapie-introduction/northern-ireland-scrapie-plan.htm

http://www.quality-register.co.uk/bodies/body38.htm


Page 53

Control body Control tasks Progress No major issues were identified in 2009.

Private laboratories authorised to undertake work in respect of the Animal By-Products Regulations 200566, the Control of Salmonella in Poultry Order 200767, the Control of Salmonella in Broiler Flocks Order 200968 and the Poultry Health Scheme69.

Laboratory examination of samples for the detection of Salmonella, Enterobacteriaceae, Clostridium perfringens and Mycroplasma.

During 2009, most laboratories complied with the test samples Quality Assurance requirements. Under the Quality Assurance scheme where laboratories suffer two or more failures they are required to be inspected. No inspections were required in 2009.

Pet travel scheme (PETS) - Commercial Transport carrier companies70 approved by Defra to bring dogs, cats or ferrets to the UK

Basic checks of pet passports (including microchips)

During 2009, 96,559 animals entered the UK under PETS. Animal Health carried out spot checks/inspections on approximately 10% of those animals. This surveillance is carried out randomly at entry points throughout a 24 hour period. Where any non-compliance was found, the carrier was informed and the animal was either re-exported or placed in quarantine depending on the circumstances. No carriers were suspended or had their agreements terminated during the year.

FVO missions 5.35 As part of the FVO general audit of the UK three specific missions took place

during 2009 to verify that official controls take place in accordance with the UK MANCP and in compliance with Community law in the relevant animal health and welfare sectors - see Table 5.7. The reports of these missions are published on the Commission website, together with the UK response to the recommendations made (web-links are given below).

Table 5.7: Summary of FVO missions in relation to animal health and welfare controls during 2009

Control activities and reference Report/UK response Import/transit control system and border inspection posts (MR 2009/8204)

Report: ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2401 UK response plan: ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_gb_2009-8204.pdf

66 The Animal By-Products (England) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2347) 67 The Control of Salmonella in Poultry (England) Order 2007 (SI 2007/2574) 68 SI 2009/260 giving effect to Commission Regulation (EC) No 646/2007 implementing Regulation (EC) No

2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Community target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in broilers and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1091/2005. Official Journal L 151, 13.06.2007 P1 – 25

69 businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1082280459&type=RESOURCES 70 Details of the UK Pet Travel Scheme, approved commercial transport carrier companies, routes and countries are

available at: defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/travel/pets/index.htm



http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1082280459&type=RESOURCES

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/travel/pets/index.htm


Page 54

Control activities and reference Report/UK response Poultry Meat, Poultry Meat products and salmonella risk in broilers (MR 2009/8072)


Animal Welfare (MR 2009/8268)


Plant health sector FVO missions 5.36 There was one FVO mission (MR 2009/8299) in November 2009 to follow up on

outstanding issues in the UK’s plant health import control system and issues related to Pinewood nematode and Citrus longhorn beetle. The report is available at ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2411 The UK response is at ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_gb_2009-8299.pdf








Page 55

Chapter 6 – Planning for the future: how far have we got in 2009? Background

6.1 The Food Standards Agency (FSA), Department for Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs (Defra), and its agencies, the Agriculture/Rural Affairs Departments in the Devolved Administrations and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have continued to work together during 2009 in order to help ensure that the system of official controls in the UK operates effectively. The UK National Control Plan (NCP) sets out the planned control activities of the various competent authorities involved for the period of the Plan and this Chapter provides information on the implementation of these control activities in 2009 and reports on the results.

Overview 6.2 The results of official controls in feed and food and animal health and welfare

sectors for 2009 in the UK, that are currently available, demonstrate that the overall level of compliance of business operators in all sectors was satisfactory. There was a renewed attention to the issue of culture and behaviour in businesses and enforcement bodies as they relate to compliance with food hygiene legislation, following the E. coli O157 outbreak and the publication of the Pennington Public Inquiry Report in 200971. In the animal health and welfare sector despite the absence of any major outbreak of exotic disease during 2009, international disease monitoring highlighted the continuing proximity of some significant disease risk while disease risk assessments helped to inform our programme of disease prevention. Work continued to focus on greater use of robust risk-based approaches to surveillance, controls to mitigate risk to public health, animal health and animal welfare and monitoring compliance with those controls.

Official controls in the feed sector Competent authorities

6.3 Responsibility for monitoring and verifying compliance with and enforcement of

feed law is divided in the UK. In Great Britain, responsibility rests mainly with local authorities (206 are involved), Department of Agriculture and Rural

71 Food Standards Agency (March 2009): The Public Inquiry into the September 2005 Outbreak of E.coli in South

Wales www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/mar/ecoliwales

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/mar/ecoliwales


Page 56

Development for Northern Ireland (DARD) in Northern Ireland and the City of London Port Health Authority. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s Animal Medicines Inspectorate undertakes official controls in relation to medicated feed and specified feed additives (SFAs) and Animal Health (AH) is responsible for ensuring compliance with the prohibition on the use of animal protein in animal feed. In Northern Ireland, DARD has responsibility for all feed controls.

6.4 In carrying out controls, local authorities are required to have regard to the Feed

Law Enforcement Code of Practice issued by the FSA.72 This includes a risk-rating scheme for determining the frequency of controls (three categories are defined, A, B and C where A represents the highest risk to animal and human health). DARD follow the Feed Law Enforcement Guidance Document (Northern Ireland) which is based on this Code and the AMI's Standard Operating Procedures also take account of the direction given in the Code.

6.5 In 2009, local authorities and DARD continued to give priority to the official

controls at those businesses risk-rated as category A and B in accordance with the Feed Law Enforcement Guidance Document (Northern Ireland). These premises require to be inspected once a year and every two years respectively. The bulk of feed business operators 'new' to the requirements of Regulation (EC) 183/2005 on feed hygiene are risk-rated category C, requiring inspection once every 5 years.

6.6 As regards planned controls for 2009, each local authority's activities are set out

in a Service Delivery Plan. To assist local authorities in targeting their feed control activities, guidance on particular priorities was provided by the FSA.73 This was based on RASFF and feed incident alerts, results of feed sample analyses received by the FSA, and changes to animal feed legislation. The main priorities identified included:

• checks for the presence of contaminants and unauthorised substances in feed materials from third countries as notified by RASSF during 2008;

• the monitoring of groundnut imports intended for wild bird feed and the inspection of feed businesses that deal in groundnuts intended for wild birds;

• random monitoring of feed materials and feedingstuffs for the presence of mycotoxins, dioxins and dioxins-like PCBs where resources permit in line with Commission Recommendations 2006/576/EC and 2006/88/EC74,75;

72 This is available at food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/feedlawcop/ 73 Guidance for enforcement authorities in Great Britain for 2009/2010 is available at:

food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/enfe09009.pdf 74 Commission Recommendation on the presence of deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, ochratoxin A, T-2 and HT-2 and

fumonisins in products intended for animal feeding (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal L 229, 23.8.2006, 7-9.

75 Commission Recommendation on the reduction of the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in feedingstuffs and foodstuffs (notified under document number C(2006) 235) (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal L 42, 14.2.2006, 26-28.

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/feedlawcop/

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/enfe09009.pdf


Page 57

• procedures which feed manufacturers (including those which are involved in processing food for human consumption into animal feed) have in place to prevent the contamination of feed with dioxins; and

• the systems and practices farmers have in place to prevent contamination of animal feed.

Feed businesses 6.7 There are approximately 140,000 feed businesses in the UK connected with the

supply of feeding stuffs for food producing animals. This includes producers of feed materials, primary producers, manufacturers of additives and premixtures, importers and distributors - see Table 6.1. The FSA and the VMD have published lists of the feed businesses approved in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) 183/2005 on feed hygiene. These lists have been sent to the Commission and can be accessed at the link below. For more information see: food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ukfeedapproved.pdf.

Table 6.1: Registered and approved feed business in the UK – 2008 (data for 2009 not available)

Type of feed business Number of businesses Primary producers 111000

Manufacturers and packers 1277

Importers 55

Distributors/transporters 1037

NB: the estimated total in paragraph 6.7 is not meant to be an addition of the other figures in Table 6.1. Local authority and DARD controls 6.8 Local authorities and DARD report statistical information on their annual control

activities to the FSA. The information collected includes details of number of inspections, re-visits, sampling visits, advisory visits and other types of intervention activity. Details of the numbers of non-compliances and of the types and numbers of formal enforcement actions taken are also provided. Data on the controls undertaken in 2009 is not currently available; it will be collated by October 2010.

Animal Medicines Inspectorate (AMI) controls 6.9 The AMI carries out inspection of feed business operators’ premises on a

planned frequency of between 12 and 36 months. During those inspections, both compliances and non-compliances are brought to the attention of the feed business operators in a written report. Where appropriate, advice is also given or enforcement measures taken. The key objective of ensuring the appropriate quality of feedingstuffs containing veterinary medicinal products and specified

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ukfeedapproved.pdf


Page 58

feed additives has been met, as demonstrated by the relatively few residues found to have been caused by incorrect feed manufacture or distribution.

6.10 Summary data on the controls undertaken by AMI in 2009 is given in Table 6.2.

This included physical inspection of premises and equipment and taking and analysis of feed samples. With regard to inspections, AMI classifies its visits as 'scheduled', 'special/follow-up' and 'other'. 'Scheduled' visits are those which are planned, based on the number of feed business operators and current inspection frequencies. 'Special/follow-up' visits are those to approved feed business operators’ premises for enforcement purposes or to check that non-compliances noted at a scheduled inspection have been rectified. 'Other' visits are those to non-approved feed business operators’ premises for enforcement purposes e.g. the unlawful incorporation of veterinary medicinal products into feedingstuffs.

Table 6.2: Summary of official controls undertaken by AMI in 2009

Control type Number Scheduled inspections 552 (of a total of 498 planned)

Special/follow-up visits 19

Other inspections 1

Feed safety incident investigations 15

Samples 119

6.11 The planned number of inspections was less than in previous years due to the

implementation of risk based inspections which extended the maximum inspection interval. However, the planned number of inspections was exceeded.

6.12 Samples were taken from all categories of manufacturers and a wide range of

products, both feedingstuffs and premixtures and were tested for the presence of a range of veterinary medicinal products and specified feed additives. A number of samples were also taken as part of coccidiostat residue investigations and tested for residues of those substances. A total of 119 samples were taken, of which 93 were tested for the declared level of active ingredient and 26 were tested for residues. Of the 93 samples tested for declared active ingredient, 67 were within the permitted tolerance levels, 23 were outside tolerance and three were not analysed. Of the 26 residue samples taken, 20 had no detectable residues and six were found to be contaminated.

6.13 Out of the 552 premises inspected 248 were found to be fully compliant. In

general terms, it is considered that there was a good level of compliance with legal requirements by manufacturers and distributors of specified feed additives, premixtures and medicated feedingstuffs in 2009. The non-compliances observed were generally minor and did not warrant more formal action being taken. However, two Improvement Notices were served for more serious non-compliance.


Page 59

6.14 With regard to Commercial Feed Compounders the main areas of non compliance were hygiene/tidiness issues, medicated feedingstuffs (MFS) prescriptions and HACCP plan issues. For on farm manufacturers incorporating veterinary medicinal products/ specified feed additives into feedingstuffs for feeding to their own livestock, the main non-compliances observed were hygiene (including tidiness and pest control), quality control issues (including homogeneity and carryover testing), sample retention issues, HACCP plans and MFS prescription issues. However other record keeping requirements such as intake and usage of controlled products were generally being met. The main areas for non-compliance for Distributors were HACCP/ Documented procedure issues and MFS Prescription issues.

Animal Health Controls - protein in animal feed ban 6.15 Compliance with the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE)-related

livestock feed controls in Great Britain is monitored by Animal Health through the National Feed Audit (NFA)76. In Northern Ireland, these controls are carried out by DARD. The inspection programme is risk-based in accordance with Regulation (EC) No.882/2004. The risk assessment establishes the level of visits needed to audit feed production and handling standards throughout the feed supply chain. Feed samples are tested for prohibited animal proteins at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (the National Reference Laboratory for animal proteins in feedingstuffs) using the microscopic analysis test (MAT) and other methods as appropriate. The programme also covers investigation of any potential breaches of the ban, and the taking of appropriate protection and enforcement action. The results of the feed survey in 2009 indicated a high level of compliance with the controls. The results of the 2009 inspection programme are provided in the Tables 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5.

76 Further information on the NFA is available at:

defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/bse/statistics/nfa.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/bse/statistics/nfa.htm


Page 60

Table 6.3: Summary of 2009 inspection programme for controls of animal protein in animal feed

in Great Britain

Stage Number of inspections comprising checks on the presence of processed animal proteins

Number of breaches not based on laboratory testing but, for example, on documentary checks

Import of feed materials 30 0

Storage of feed materials 37 0

Feed mills 580 1

Home mixers/mobile mixers 226 3

Intermediaries of feedingstuffs 21 0

Means of transport 25 1

Farms keeping non-ruminants 67 0

Farms keeping ruminants 693 0

Farms keeping both ruminants and non ruminants

858 2

Total 2537 7 Table 6.4: Summary of 2009 sampling programme for controls of animal protein in animal feed in

Northern Ireland

Stage Number of samples tested for the presence of processed animal proteins

Positive

Import/ Mill store 110 0

Feed mill 201 0

Home Mixer 35 0

Intermediaries 30 0

Total 376 0


Table 6.5: Summary of 2009 sampling programme for controls of animal protein in animal feed in Great Britain

Premises

Number of samples collected by Animal Health tested for processed

animal proteins

Number of non-compliant samples

Presence of processed animal protein from terrestrial animals

Presence of processed animal protein from fish

Feed materials

Compound feedingstuffs Feed

materials

Compound feedingstuffs Feed

materials

Compound feedingstuffs

For ruminants

For non-ruminants

For ruminants

For non-ruminants

For ruminants

For non-ruminants

At import 603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Feed mills 1052 1215 481 0 0 0 0 0 0

Intermediaries/ storage

965 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Means of transport

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Home mixers/ mobile mixers

175 212 167 0 0 0 0 0 0

On farm 364 1830 759 0 2 0 0 0 0

Fats & vegetable oils

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3161 3292 1412 0 2 0 0 0 0

Page 61


Page 62

Official controls in the food sector Competent authorities 6.16 Responsibility for monitoring and verifying compliance with and enforcement of

food law is divided in the UK. For the most part, responsibility lies with local and port health authorities of which there are 469. For the remaining controls, responsibility is divided between central Government Departments and their agencies (see Figure 1). Details of the control activities of these authorities during 2008/9 are outlined in the following paragraphs.

Local and port health authority controls 6.17 In carrying out controls, local authorities are required to have regard to the Food

Law Enforcement Codes of Practice - there are separate but parallel Codes in each of the four UK countries.77 These Codes include risk-rating schemes, one for food hygiene and one for food standards, for determining the frequency of inspections. For food hygiene, five categories are defined - A to E - and for food standards there are three categories - A to C. For each scheme, A represents the highest-risk premises.

6.18 The control and enforcement activities of local authorities are monitored by the FSA. This includes controls in relation to general food law (food safety, traceability, withdrawals and recalls), imported food, labelling (general, nutritional etc.), composition and standards (e.g. bottled waters, fat spreads, chocolate, foods for particular nutritional use, irradiation) biological safety (e.g. food hygiene), chemical safety (e.g. additives, contaminants, food contact materials) and biotechnology (GM food). The relevant data is collected annually on a financial year basis and is published on the FSA’s website, as both national totals and individual authority figures. The data currently collected focuses mainly, but not solely, on actions by the local authorities - on service inputs rather than outcome measures.

6.19 Introduction of FSA Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring Scheme (LAEMS)

for reporting local authority (LA) official controls activity from 2008/09 has introduced automatic data transfer from LAs to the Agency This provides a more accurate and enhanced data base, better analysis opportunities and as such, more robust baselines upon which to track trends. In addition to the quantitative information on LA official controls activities and actions, LAEMS collects data on the levels of UK food business compliance with food law as assessed by LA food officers during routine inspections, and data on LA food law enforcement staffing levels. Details of the official controls on food carried out in the year April 2009 to March 2010 will not be available until late 2010. The most recent data available

77 The Codes are available by following the links at: food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/foodlawcop/

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/foodlawcop/


Page 63

is that for the financial year April 2008 to March 2009. This is the first return under the new arrangements. The data and details of LA audit activity were reported to the March 2010 FSA Board Meeting in a UK Local Authority Food Law Enforcement Report 2008/0978. Primary analyses show: • LAs carried out a total of 525,009 interventions at food establishments. This

was a slight reduction on previous years, however, • Interventions at higher risk category establishments have been prioritised; • 86% of UK establishments inspected for food hygiene were at a level

equivalent to the top three tiers of the national food hygiene rating (“scores on the doors”) scheme;

• LAs carried out over 167,000 formal enforcement actions, with a notable increase from previous years in certain types of formal legal action.

A joint working group with LAs and LACORS has been established to consider the LAEMS data, and to help inform future enforcement.

Import controls 6.20 In 2009, local and port health authorities continued to undertake official controls

on food being imported from third countries under imported food legislation to check compliance with EU food law requirements, and applied EU safeguard measures. The level of controls for products of animal origin were applied as set out in Directive 97/78/EC,79 and for food of plant origin risk based controls were applied as set out in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) 882/2204. Additional controls were applied to relevant products as required under EU safeguard measures, under Article 53 of Regulation (EC) 178/200280. For safeguard measures which require the PHA to take samples, information on whether the analysis was satisfactory or not is sent to the Commission. Defra may also be required to provide information to Commission on POAO controls at BIPs. However, for routine checks, information on satisfactory results of analysis (e.g. on non-POAO imports) is held at local level. Results of non-compliant products are submitted by the Food Standards Agency to the Commission as RASFF notifications.

6.21 The Food Standards Agency provided grants to enforcement authorities for

sampling and analysis of imported food for the year 2008/2009 (i.e. year ending March 2009) and for the year 2009/2010 (i.e. year ending March 2010). The summary report and key findings for 2008/2009 are available on the Agency’s website at the link below. The results for 2009/2010 are undergoing analysis and are not yet available. They will be published in due course at the link below. food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/enforce_authorities/samplingandsurveillance/.

78 More information is available at: food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa100309v3.pdf (UK LA Food Law

Enforcement Report 2008/09), and food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/mondatabyyear/ocd200809/ (Monitoring and outcomes data).

79 Council Directive 97/78/EC laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries. Official Journal L 24, 30.1.1998, 9.

80 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal L 31, 1.2.2002, 1–24.

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/enforce_authorities/samplingandsurveillance/

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa100309v3.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/mondatabyyear/ocd200809/


Page 64

6.22 In 2009, live animals and products of animal origin imported from third countries were subject to veterinary checks at the point of entry into the UK, at Border Inspection Posts. All consignments received a documentary and identity check, with physical checks being carried out in accordance with the percentages laid down in Decision 1994/36081. Data on these checks was recorded on the TRACES system and information on any samples taken as part of these controls was recorded on the TRACES system. During the year additional samples were taken under the requirements of Commission safeguard measures on imports of fish and fishery products, but this additional work did not affect the level of controls undertaken in other areas. Where the results of the checks revealed a public health risk, the Commission and other Member States were alerted via the RASFF system. Where checks on products of animal origin revealed excess residues, serious infringements or repeated infringements, additional checks were carried out on the next 10 consignments. In 2009 5 controls were introduced for these reasons.

6.23 65,743 consignments of products of animal origin underwent veterinary checks in

the UK during 2009. Of these 726 consignments were rejected, of these 274 were re-exported, 7 were used for another purpose and 445 were destroyed. Details of samples taken at border inspection posts are required by Commission Decision 2004/360/EC82. The UK return was submitted on 4 June.

6.24 Commission Regulation 206/200983 requires details of checks for illegal personal

imports of products of animal origin to be sent to the Commission. The UK return was sent on 4 March. An annual review of the results of these controls was issued to the UK Parliament during summer 2010 and is published at defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/personal-import/reports/index.htm.

Additional sampling activities 6.25 Results of other additional controls in 2009 are summarised below:

• notification of voluntary suspension of export of fresh water shrimps from Bangladesh due to certain pharmacologically active substances;

• additional controls on crustaceans of aquaculture origin from India due to certain pharmacologically active substances;

• extension of period of suspension of certain bivalve molluscs from Peru due to hepatitis A;

• additional controls on fresh pears from Turkey due to the pesticide amitraz;

81 Commission Decision 1994/360/EC on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain

products to be implemented from third countries, under Council Directive 90/675/EEC. Official Journal L 158, 25.06.1994, 41-45.

82 Commission Decision 2004/360/EC laying down special conditions for imports of fishery products from Zimbabwe (notified under document number C(2004) 1328) Official Journal L 113, 20.4.2004, 48–53

83 Commission Regulation (EC) No 206/2009 on the introduction into the Community of personal consignments of products of animal origin and amending Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (Text with EEA relevance) Official Journal L 77, 24.3.2009, 1–19

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/personal-import/reports/index.htm


Page 65

• prohibition on products containing milk, milk products, soya or soya products from China for particular nutritional use of infants and young children due to melamine hazard. Additional controls on products containing milk or milk products, soya or soya products, and on ammonium bicarbonate from China due to melamine hazard;

• Guar Gum and Guar Gum products from India due to pentachlorophenol and dioxins - there were no recorded reports of non-compliance; and

• sunflower oil from Ukraine due to mineral oil84 - no unsatisfactory consignments.

6.26 Additional controls and prohibitions on imported food were implemented, and

guidance issued on the application of the controls to enforcement authorities at points of entry to the UK. Results of tests under EU safeguard measures on fishery products from Indonesia and on crustaceans from Bangladesh showed compliance, with no unsatisfactory results. Details of the results were sent quarterly to the Commission. A summary is provided in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6: Summary results of official controls in the UK on fishery products from Albania,

Gabon, India and Indonesia, and crustaceans from Bangladesh and India - 2009

Decision/ Regulation

Country Product Hazard Number of Consign.

Number testing

satisfactory

Number testing un-satisfactory

2007/642/EC Albania

Fishery products (certain species)

Histamine 0 n/a n/a

2008/630/EC Bangladesh Crustaceans Certain vet residues

82 76 6

2008/601/EC Gabon Fishery products

Heavy metals/ sulphites

0 n/a n/a

2008/660/EC Indonesia Fishery products (wild caught)

Heavy metals 286 286 0

2009/727/EC India (from Oct 09)

Crustaceans Nitrofurans 5 5 0

2008/660/EC Indonesia (from 16 August)

Fishery products (wild caught)

Heavy metals 19 19 0

84 Commission Decision 2008/433/EC imposing special conditions governing the import of sunflower oil originating

in or consigned from Ukraine due to contamination risks by mineral oil (notified under document number C(2008) 2709) Official Journal L 151, 11.6.2008, 55–56 from 10 June 2008 (Commission Decision 2008/388/EC: from 23 May 2008 – 9 June 2008).


Page 66

Mycotoxins in Food 6.27 In 2009, official controls in relation to mycotoxins in imported foods were carried

out in accordance with Decision 2006/504/EC at designated points of entry and reported to the Commission on a quarterly basis. A total of 2457 consignments were presented for import; 261 subject to physical sampling and analysis, of which 28 were found to be non-compliant (including failure to present required documentation). A summary of the results of these controls is provided below. Therefore less than 11% of consignments tested were non-compliant overall, and less than 9% were found to be non-compliant for mycotoxins. This compares to less than 20% and less than 15% respectively from 260 tested consignments in 2008. A summary of the results of these controls is provided in Table 6.7. Additional official controls were carried out as follows: • Official controls on consignments under Commission Decision 2008/47/EC85. • Unplanned official controls carried out on food lots to check compliance with

maximum levels laid down in EC Regulation 1881/200686 e.g. following suspicion of non-compliance from informal sampling. Non-compliant food lots were dealt with as appropriate.

• Some official control samples for mycotoxins were taken as part of the Imported Food Sampling Plan during 2009. Non-compliant food lots were dealt with as appropriate.

6.28 As regards official controls taken as part of the Imported Food Sampling Plan

during 2009, problems are reported with high aflatoxin levels in some imported spices and spice mixes, peanut products and other products such as melon seeds and rice. There was one significant finding of a lesser known mycotoxin, moniliformin in white coarse borghul that is of interest. Specific product types from particular third countries continue to indicate compliance issues; however, these are not unexpected. None of the levels reported were likely to cause significant acute effects. In general a good level of compliance is indicated, particularly with regard to coffee.

6.29 Information from official controls has been used to inform the effectiveness of the

Commission Decision as amended on aflatoxins, contribute to the revision of restrictions imposed as part of the Decision (under the new Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009) and will help to formulate the list of food of non-animal origin at Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (came into force in January 2010) as designated by article 15(5) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 as regards contamination by mycotoxins.

85 Commission Decision 2008/47/EC approving the pre-export checks carried out by the United States of America

on peanuts and derived products thereof as regards the presence of aflatoxins (notified under document number C(2007) 6451) Official Journal L 11, 15.1.2008, 12–16

86 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (Text with EEA relevance) Official Journal L 364, 20.12.2006, 5–24


Page 67

Table 6.7: Results of official controls in the UK regarding mycotoxins in imported foods carried out in accordance with Decision 2006/504/EC FSA in 2009

Product No of consignments Imported Tested Non-

compliant for mycotoxins

Non-compliant for insufficient documentation

Products originating from Brazil - Brazil nuts in-shell

0 0 0 0

Products originating from Brazil - Peanuts 98 24 2 0

Peanuts and compound products from China 845 91 5 2

Peanuts from Egypt 0 0 0 0

Pistachios and pistachio products from Iran 5 3 2 0

Products originating from Turkey - Hazelnuts and hazelnut products including hazelnut paste

464 25 3 2

Products originating from Turkey - Pistachios and derived products containing pistachios

127 2 0 1

Products originating from Turkey - Products containing mix of pistachios and hazelnuts

111 1 0 0

Products originating from Turkey - fig and fig products

177 21 4 0

Products originating from Turkey - miscellaneous products

27 1 1 0

Almonds and products thereof imported from USA

589 79 5 0

Totals 2457 261 23 5

Illegal Personal Imports 6.30 New rules covering personal imports of Products Of Animal Origin (POAO came

into force on 1 May 2009. In 2009 Defra, HMRC/UKBA and the FSA have continued to work together on publicity campaigns, including a national re-launch of the ‘Don’t bring it back!’ campaign (in October) to increase awareness about what food products can and can’t be brought back to the UK. In December, the rules were included in a range of UKBA messages that are displayed on internet desks, LCD screens and screen savers at various ports and airports, and incorporated into a new UKBA booklet ‘Playing By The Rules’, which is issued to all successful UK visa applicants.

Meat hygiene and TSE controls 6.31 The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), which became part of Food Standards

Agency’s Operations Group on 1 April 2010, is responsible in Great Britain for official controls in approved meat establishments subject to veterinary audit. This service is provided on behalf of the FSA in Northern Ireland (FSANI) by DARD's VS-VPHU. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing these controls other than at approved meat establishments. Inspection data is collected on the results of ante- and post-mortem checks and audit data in relation to animal by-


Page 68

products (including Specified Risk Material (SRM), application and implementation of HACCP etc.

6.32 During 2009, 1999 Written Advice Notices (in 267 establishments), 134 Hygiene

Improvement Notices (41 establishments), 69 Remedial Action Notices (29 establishments) and 98 Recommendations for Prosecution (45 establishments) were served by the Meat Hygiene Service in slaughterhouses/game handling establishments and cutting plants in general.

6.33 The reduced number of Hygiene Improvement Notices served in 2009 may have been caused by the continuation of the approval process which has encouraged some plants to improve their standards in order to gain full approval. The Agency carried out unannounced visits to some cutting plants during this period and found that there were higher levels of non compliances in some plants; some of the non compliances were dealt with by the service of Remedial Action Notices and this may have caused the slight increase in the number of served Remedial Action Notices in 2009. Also, the ‘Cause for Concern’ initiative (see chapter 4) has increased the focus on poor performing plants to encourage them to improve their standards and work with the Agency. This may have led to the decrease in Recommendations for Prosecution during this period.

6.34 Meat containing SRM was discovered to have been imported into the UK on one

occasion in 2009. In addition, there were five instances of carcases containing SRM being marked as fit for human consumption at UK establishments. All incidents were thoroughly investigated and the FSA is satisfied that no food containing SRM reached the final consumer. Details of breaches in SRM controls are published on the FSA website. Six successful prosecutions were concluded during 2009 for breaches of SRM controls.

VS-VPHU controls 6.35 A Service Level Agreement (SLA) exists between FSANI and VS-VPHU, which

records the services, requirements and targets to be met. Official control information is divided into inspection and audit data. Inspection data covers results of ante- and post-mortem checks. Ante- and post-mortem examination inspections results are held electronically on the Animal and Public Health Information System (APHIS) managed by DARD and results are available to food business operators. Audit data covers the verification of food business operator activities (e.g. food business operator controls on animal by-products (including SRM), application and implementation of pre-requisites and HACCP, etc). No unplanned official controls were undertaken during 2009. Of the 157 planned food business operator audits for 2009, 156 were completed. One was not completed because the business ceased to operate. In the period 1st January to 31st December 2009, 130 Corrective Action Request letters, two Remedial Action Notices, five Hygiene Improvement Notices and one Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notice were served by VPHU staff in approved premises during inspection and audit activities.


Page 69

Approvals of meat establishments 6.36 The FSA is responsible for the approval of those fresh meat premises in the UK

that are subject to veterinary audit and has been undertaking a programme to approve, under Regulation 853/200487, all meat establishments that were licensed under the previous legislation and certain catering butchers and game handling establishments that were previously exempt from approval. This programme is contributing to reducing foodborne illness by raising standards in meat establishments. The approvals programme is, in the majority of cases, prompting operators to carry out the necessary improvements to gain approval.

6.37 The re-approval process in Northern Ireland has been completed. The approval

programme in Scotland and Northern Ireland was completed in 2009. The approval programme was also completed in Wales in 2009 apart from two catering butcher establishments which were approved at the first quarter of 2010. In England, all slaughterhouses had an approval decision by the end of 2009; all game handling establishments, previously exempt from approval, had an approval decision by the end of 2009. Also, majority of the catering butchers, which required approval as cutting plants, received an approval decision by the end of 2009. As at 31 March 2010, 11 catering butchers were yet to be assessed for approval and will receive an approval decision by summer 2010. This is due to the fact that: the establishments are currently being renovated; the food business operators are in the process of moving to other locations or are not yet ready for approval.

6.38 20 meat establishments subject to veterinary audit were refused approval in

2009. Nineteen of the plants were either previously licensed or catering butchers operating prior to January 2006 (one poultry slaughterhouse, seven red meat slaughterhouses and eleven cutting plants). Eight of these subsequently upgraded their establishments and obtained conditional or full approval. The new establishment refused approval was a cutting plant.

Hygiene controls at milk production holdings (in UK) and liquid milk processing establishments (in Northern Ireland) 6.39 Animal Health Dairy Hygiene (AHDH), on behalf of the FSA, is responsible for

hygiene controls at milk production holdings in England and Wales. DARD Quality Assurance Branch (QAB) is responsible for milk hygiene controls on behalf of the FSA in Northern Ireland and local authority food law enforcement services are responsible for controls in Scotland. During 2009 there were approximately 11,200 milk production holdings in England and Wales, 3674 in Northern Ireland and 1,236 in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, DARD QAB, on behalf of FSANI, is also responsible for hygiene controls at liquid milk processing establishments, of which there were 10 in 2009.

87 Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of laying down

specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004. Corrected version in OJ L 226, 25.6.2004). Official Journal L 204, 4.8.2007, 26–26


Page 70

6.40 AHDH carried out a full programme of inspections in 2009 to enforce the relevant

provisions of the food hygiene legislation at milk production holdings in England and Wales. It achieved this by carrying out a risk based programme of inspections to ensure that a satisfactory standard of hygiene was maintained. No unplanned inspections were carried out.

6.41 The numbers of primary inspections and secondary inspections (to check on

correction of non-compliances) carried out in 2009 by AHDH, DARD and local authorities in Scotland are given in Table 6.8. The number of secondary inspections carried out in England and Wales in 2009 equates to approximately 20%,of which the vast majority were satisfactorily resolved. There were two successful dairy hygiene prosecutions under the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 in 2009 in relation to hygiene deficiencies at production holdings. The number of inspections, and the extent to which any problems are resolved after secondary inspections, indicates that current official controls are effective.

Table 6.8: Summary of hygiene controls on milk production holdings in England Scotland and

Wales and liquid milk processing establishments in Northern Ireland in 2009

Primary inspections

Secondary inspections

Formal enforcement actions

Milk production holdings

AHDH 10572 2218 • 1320 Guidance Letters • 45 Hygiene Improvement Notices* • 2 successful prosecutions

Local Authorities in Scotland

275 78 • 30 warning letters • 14 guidance letters

DARD QAB 3383 1769 • 213 warning letters • 442 confirmatory (guidance) letters

Liquid milk processing establishments

DARD QAB 4 21 • 9 confirmatory (guidance) letters

* These are issued if, at a further secondary inspection, the major non compliances have not been rectified. Failure to comply with the Hygiene Improvement Notice would result in the case being referred to the Food Standards Agency for investigation with a view to prosecution. Incidents of non-compliance at dairy inspections in the main related to milking operations and equipment cleanliness.

Hygiene controls at egg production units 6.42 These controls are carried out, on behalf of the FSA, by the Egg Marketing

Inspectorate (EMI) in England and Wales, the Scottish Government's Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate in Scotland, and DARD QAB in Northern Ireland. As regards England and Wales, the FSA’s Service Level Agreement (SLA) with EMI included an increased revised target (agreed with the FSA) to inspect 611 production sites in the year April 2009 – March 2010, almost one third of the 1,884 registered egg production sites.


Page 71

6.43 As a result of enforcement inspections carried out by EMI, 87% of producers

were judged to be fully compliant with the legislative requirements. No major or critical non-compliances were found at any premises inspected and it was not necessary to take formal enforcement actions or issue formal notices. To date, this suggests that control priorities are effective and that resources allocated are appropriate and that the overall level of compliance by operators with legislative requirements is good. The results of inspections carried out by DARD QAB in 2009 are given in Table 6.9.

6.44 In 2009 there were a total of 285 registered egg production sites in Scotland, of

which 144 had 350 or more hens. 28 sites were formally inspected under the hygiene regulations during 2009. No non compliance issues requiring enforcement action were identified. Some recommendations concerning best practice were provided where this was considered desirable. The December 2009 census figure for the total number of laying hens in Scotland was 3,116,000, most of which are located at the 144 egg production sites housing 350 or more hens. Under the SLA with SGRPID all egg production units with 350 or more hens require to be inspected at least once by 31 December 2011.

Table 6.9: Summary of hygiene controls at egg production holdings and egg packing

establishments in Northern Ireland in 2009 Primary

inspections Secondary inspections

Formal enforcement actions

200 Egg production holdings

DAR D QAB 82 8 • 2 warning letters • 7 conformity (guidance) letters

40 Egg packing establishments (at end of 2009) DARD QAB 14 23 • 16 conformity (guidance) letters

Hygiene controls at other primary producers 6.45 The frequency of food and feed inspections at primary production level differs:

feed - 1, 2 or 5 yearly risk rating and food - 2% (low risk) and 25% (high risk) based on local knowledge and membership of an assurance scheme. The Agency recognising that rationalisation of on-farm inspection would be in line with the ‘better regulation’ principles, is currently running a pilot in Scotland to integrate food and feed hygiene inspections under a single risk-rating regime for primary production food law. Last year we reported that the pilot will be evaluated and outcomes applied to the rest of the UK, as appropriate. The evaluation is ongoing and, the first report is due in April 2011.


Page 72

Classification and monitoring of UK shellfish harvesting areas 6.46 The position in 2009 was as follows:

• In England and Wales, nine beds exceeded the statutory limits for Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) and two beds exceeded the statutory limits for Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP). In total, eleven beds were closed due to toxin levels in flesh samples – closures lasted between 3 and 7 weeks.

• In Scotland a full biotoxin, Phytoplankton, and hygiene monitoring programme was carried out across classified areas. The Agency, in Scotland, manages this programme through a dedicated Shellfish Unit. Detail of this programme and the results are available at the link below. An early biotoxin re-testing protocol, which allows harvesters to apply for sites to be re-opened early, should certain conditions be met, has been implemented. food.gov.uk/scotland/safetyhygienescot/shellmonitorscot/.

• In Northern Ireland six beds were closed in 2009 due to toxin exceedances in flesh samples and microbiological contamination. Five beds exceeded the statutory limits for Diarrheic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP). Additional toxin samples were lifted from the closed beds a week apart and these all tested negative for DSP. FSA in Northern Ireland informed the relevant District Council of these results and they proceeded with lifting the temporary closure notice. One bed was closed due to a microbiological result which exceeded the statutory maximum level. Additional microbiological samples were lifted a week apart and these had satisfactory microbiological e-coli counts. FSA in Northern Ireland notified the relevant District Council of these results and they proceeded with lifting the temporary closure notice.

Food irradiation 6.47 The FSA is responsible for the licensing and inspection of food irradiation

facilities in the UK of which there is currently only one. This was not inspected during 2009.

6.48 The FSA is required under Directive 1999/2/EC88 to provide a report each year to

the Commission on compliance of food irradiation on foods and food ingredients treated with ionising irradiation, facilities subject to official controls, the quantities of food irradiated and the radiation dose administered, and on the results of checks for irradiated food at the product marketing stage. The data for 2009 was provided to the Commission in June. In summary: • no food was irradiated in the one approved UK food irradiation facility; • at the product marketing stage, 345 individual food samples were analysed

and 9 (3%) were found to be irradiated and either not labelled as irradiated, or had not been irradiated at an approved facility;

88 Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the

Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation. Official Journal L 66, 13.3.1999, 16-23.

http://www.food.gov.uk/scotland/safetyhygienescot/shellmonitorscot/


Page 73

• non-compliant products included dried herbs, spices, vegetable seasonings and Asian type noodle meals and frogs legs;

• there is no evidence that the products were irradiated at facilities in the European Community and it is likely that most non-compliant products originated from third countries.

Protected food names 6.49 Defra is responsible for the operation within the UK of the schemes for the

protection of food names on a geographical or traditional recipe basis. Producers of registered food names are inspected by Defra approved inspection bodies to ensure that the appropriate specification is being met for the 37 protected food name products registered. Official controls, to ensure compliance against the registered specification on each producer using a protected food name, were achieved in 2009 and no unplanned official controls were undertaken. As a result of these checks no formal action was taken to de-register any UK producer.

6.50 UK local authorities have an enforcement role with respect to ensuring that

protected food product names are not used fraudulently and that general rules are complied with. Information on local authority control activities is included in paras 6.17 to 6.19 above.

Organic products 6.51 In the UK, Defra is the Competent Authority for the organic control system and

therefore has responsibility for ensuring that the organic certification and inspection system is meeting the requirements set down in Council Regulation 834/2007 and its implementing Regulations. Defra has worked with the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (who are responsible for accrediting the UK’s organic control bodies to Standard EN45011) to ensure that the UK organic control bodies are properly fulfilling the control requirements set down in the EU legislation and check that they are addressing any areas of concern. Defra has approved the control bodies to operate an organic certification system in the UK only where it has been satisfied that they are fulfilling the control requirements effectively. Defra has also worked with the UK Local Authorities to ensure that all food labelled as “organic” complies with the EU organic standards. This has involved alerting Food Standards Officers (who have responsibility for dealing with fraudulent labelling of food) to any suspected fraudulent trading of produces labelled as “organic” and responding to any queries they may have.

6.52 Articles 27, 35 and 36 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 require the

organic control bodies and Defra to provide information on the measures taken in the previous calendar year to ensure that the organic control measures are being enforced effectively. The requirements include: • the control bodies to provide Defra by 31 January each year with a list of

certified organic operators as at 31 December of the previous calendar year;


Page 74

• the control bodies to provide Defra by 31 March each year with a summary report of the control activities they carried out in the previous calendar year;

• Defra to provide the Commission on a regular basis with the names and details and any relevant information about the authorities and bodies involved in the inspection system;

• Defra to provide the Commission by 1 July each year with statistical information including the numbers of organic operators, data on organic crop production, data on organic livestock and data on organic industrial production.

The information provided in respect of the 2009 calendar year shows that the organic control system was working effectively in the UK with no major concerns about the competence of the organic control bodies to ensure that their licensees complied with the requirements of the EU organic Regulations.

6.53 The information provided by the UK organic control bodies shows that there were

more than 7,700 organic operators in the UK as at 31 December 2009. All organic control bodies are required to visit the organic operators for which they have responsibility at least once a year, but they may also undertake additional visits. A total of 356 organic operators received additional visits in 2009. The organic control bodies can make announced or unannounced visits to their operators. In 2009 there were 7,622 announced visits to registered organic operators in the UK and a further 249 unannounced inspections also took place. As a result, 6,384 infringements of the organic standards were reported. This resulted in 1,083 penalties being applied by the organic certification bodies.

6.54 Of the 6,384 infringements of the organic standards that were reported, 6,383 of

the infringements were classed as irregularities and one was classed as a manifest infringement. This resulted in 1,043 penalties being applied by the organic certification bodies. 1,052 penalties were applied to the lot or production run (meaning that indications referring to the organic production method were removed from the entire lot or production run affected by the irregularity concerned) and 31 penalties were applied on the operator (meaning that the operator concerned was prohibited from marketing products with indications referring to the organic production method for an agreed period). There were, however, no major incidents of mis-selling of non-organic or contaminated produce as certified organic produce.

Beef labelling controls 6.55 The beef labelling system is designed to provide consumers with reliable

information about the beef they buy. The rules apply to all fresh and frozen beef and veal for sale at all stages of the supply chain from slaughterhouse to final point of sale. Claims about the origin, production methods and characteristics of beef which are not compulsory may be approved under the Beef Labelling Scheme on a voluntary basis. Under the scheme, prior approval of an application and verification of voluntary claims is carried out by recognised independent third parties or ‘verifiers’. Risk based inspections (which are


Page 75

increased where problems are identified) are undertaken at licensed abattoirs and cutting plants. Beef labelling in the retail sector is inspected by local authorities. Traceability at licensed premises is traced back to at least one days batch of boning and in some cases can be traced back to a group of animals.

6.56 The following official controls were undertaken for beef labelling by each

competent authority: At abattoirs and cutting plants:

• In England and Wales (with an MHS presence) by the Rural Payments Agency’s Technical Inspectors (on behalf of DEFRA);

• In Scotland by the Scottish Government’s Meat and Livestock Inspectors; • In Northern Ireland by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affair’s (DARD)

Senior Technical Inspectors; At retail level:

• UK-wide by local authorities to ensure that all beef (cuts and carcases) sold/supplied by operators were correctly labelled with the required compulsory indications and that traceability of the beef was maintained at all times, in accordance with Title II of EC Regulation 1760/200089. Also check any approved voluntary labelling in use to ensure that operators have received permission to use those specific claims by way of independent verification and a valid approval certificate issued through the competent authority.

6.57 In England and Wales, the RPA achieved its planned official controls for 2009

and a total of 596 inspections were carried out. Of these, 57 were plants situated in Wales. The planned control programme carried out by verifiers was generally achieved to agreed targets. Non-compliances are usually categorised at two levels, Major and Minor, however it is encouraging to note that during this reporting period all compliances were Minor. Of the 383 inspections conducted, 129 (34%) resulted in minor non-compliances. Although the level of minor non-compliance appears significant, the sectors were proactive in correcting non-compliance and instances where certification had to be suspended were rare. Where non-compliance was found, plants were revisited as a “follow-up” inspection until a satisfactory outcome was achieved. Of the 596 initial inspections, 220 achieved an un-satisfactory outcome, resulting in a follow-up inspection being required to ensure that corrective action had been taken. The type and number of non-compliances identified were: • Lack of full traceability – 217 • Carcases/boxes/cuts/trays/dolavs/quarters received & not labelled – 39 • Carcases/boxes/cuts/trays/dolavs/quarters prepared for dispatch and not

labelled – 125 • Approved labelling check unsatisfactory – 7 • Mince not labelled correctly – 8

89 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a system for the

identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97). Official Journal L 204, 11.8.2000, 1–10


Page 76

For 2009, the overall level of compliance by operators was approximately 63%. Correction of 2008 data 6.58 It is important to highlight an error regarding the figures that were provided in the

2008 annual report before making comparisons against the 2008 data. The 803 inspection figure mistakenly included follow-ups. The correct data should have stated that a total of 437 inspections were carried out. Of these, 41 were plants situated in Wales. Where non-compliance was found, plants were revisited as a “follow-up” inspection until a satisfactory outcome was achieved. Of the 437 inspections, 168 achieved an un-satisfactory outcome, resulting in a follow-up inspection being required to ensure that corrective action had been taken. The type and number of non-compliances identified were: • Lack of full traceability – 78 • Carcases not labelled – 5 • Boxes/cuts/trays/dolavs/quarters received and not labelled – 29 • Approved labelling check unsatisfactory – 25 For 2008, the overall level of compliance by operators was approximately 62%.

6.59 So, in comparison with the 2008 data, the overall level of compliance of 63% for

2009, has remained pretty similar. This is encouraging, especially when considering the increased number of new catering butchers (see chapter 3).

6.60 The Scottish Government achieved its planned official controls for 2009. In

Scotland, overall, 32 inspections took place at licensed abattoirs and cutting plants. Of these 32 inspections 6 non-compliance letters were issued to 4 operators on the beef labelling scheme. All of the non-compliances were for failing to show compulsory indicators. The overall compliance of the beef labelling schemes in Scotland has been found to be mainly low risk. Minimal numbers of operators are falling into the medium to high risk category. These operators are visited on a more frequent basis. On most occasions if minor problems are found on any part of the beef labelling scheme then remedial action following inspection can take place without a non-compliance letter being issued. No Scottish operators were restricted or prohibited from placing on to the market beef or animals. Neither were any approvals to operate withdrawn, nor suspensions, fines or legal action administered.

6.61 In Northern Ireland, DARD achieved its planned official controls for 2009. DARD

Quality Assurance Branch Technical Inspectors carried out 129 beef labelling inspections during 2009. The following target level of inspections was achieved: • 4 inspections per annum in abattoirs and large cutting plants; • 2 inspections per annum in small cutting plants and • 1 inspection per annum in cold stores. Unscheduled (follow-up) inspections were undertaken where non-compliance was found. These inspections had little or no impact on planned inspections. In abattoirs and cutting plants 20 instances of non-compliance were detected in 14


Page 77

out of 52 premises inspected, resulting in five verbal warnings, thirteen follow-up inspections; seven warning letters, and one Enforcement Notice which resulted in the business having to send the beef for processing. Non-compliances related to labels with information omitted or inaccurate information and inaccurate company records. For 2009, the overall level of compliance by operators was 73%.

Recognition of non-EEA natural mineral water sources 6.62 The FSA is directly responsible for controls for the recognition of non-EEA

natural mineral water sources. The third country recognition for Alpwater was withdrawn in January 2009 at the request of the producer. Details of natural mineral waters recognised in the UK are available on the FSA website at: food.gov.uk/enforcement/sectorrules/mineralwaters

Pesticide residues 6.63 The Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD) of the Health and Safety Executive

(HSE) is responsible for the national monitoring and surveillance programmes for pesticide residues in food and drink. The CRD is required to report monitoring and surveillance data under EC Regulation 396/200590 which requires Member States to check regularly the compliance of foodstuffs with MRLs. The purpose of the UK monitoring programme for pesticide residues in food and drink is to monitor the risk to consumers, and check for compliance with legislation. Information on the origin of all foods analysed are published (known as the “Brand Name Policy”). This policy helps consumers and retailers to make informed choices about the food that is available for them to purchase as well as encouraging suppliers and producers to achieve a high rate of compliance. Foods are monitored for some pesticides that are not approved for that crop which helps protect consumers and the environment from illegal practices. More detailed information on the particular activities of the CRD is provided at Appendix K of the NCP.

6.64 All planned official controls were achieved, including sampling of chilli peppers

and infant foods originally planned for 2008. There were no unplanned official controls – ones that involved a significant temporary departure from the national control plan due to unforeseen circumstances. There is provision within the national monitoring plan for a small survey to be carried out in response to any information that arrives during the year. In 2009 resources were diverted to enable a small survey of nicotine in mushrooms requested by the Commission (as a part of an EU-wide survey) to inform decision making on this emerging issue.

6.65 CRD reports to the Commission the results of the monitoring programme for

pesticide residues carried out both under their national programme and under the EU co-ordinated programme. Complete results for 2009 will be complied in time

90 Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on maximum residue levels of

pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC. Official Journal L 70, 16.3.2005, 1-16.

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/sectorrules/mineralwaters


Page 78

for submission as required under Directive 396/2005. Compiled results are not available for 2009 at the time of writing. Examination of the results to date suggest that the largest percentage of non-compliances were found in the fruit and vegetable sector. This sector of the programme has been designed to include a wider range of commodities than the others (animal products, cereal products and groceries). Fruit and vegetables also receive proportionally more financial resources. There were no changes identified to the overall control priorities and resource allocation as a result of the official controls.

6.66 Results for 2009 have been published online in quarterly reports at

pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=2791. The Pesticide Residues Committee annual report for 2009 will be published in September 2010 and will also be available at the same link. The time between sample collection and publication is used to: analyse the samples; peer review the results; compile the reports; consult with brand owners of the sample and, discuss findings with the Pesticide Residues Committee. Results for 2008 are available at pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=2536.

6.67 HSE CRD conducted a screening risk assessment on all the residues found.

Consumer risk assessments are carried out for both short-term (peak) and long-term intakes. Whenever residue levels could lead to intakes above the Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) then a detailed risk assessment was produced and a draft RASSF notification was submitted to the Food Standards Agency.

Medicated feed and specified feed additives

6.68 The Animal Medicines Inspectorate (AMI) inspects and approves manufacturers

and distributors of specified feed additives, medicated animal feedingstuffs and retailers of certain restricted veterinary medicines. The AMI also carry out routine audits of feedingstuffs manufacturers and distributors, (which include taking samples of feed for quantitative analysis), and conduct follow up visits where serious non compliance necessitates additional control activities. In 2009, two Improvement Notices were served on Feed Business Operators: 1 Notice was served on a commercial feed manufacturer and 1 on an on-farm manufacturer. Both were served for hygiene deficiencies. No seizure notices were served on feed business operators in 2009. Improvement and seizure notices are published on the VMD’s website vmd.gov.uk/General/Enforce/notices.htm.

Veterinary residue surveillance 6.69 The VMD is responsible for the national veterinary drug residue surveillance

programmes. The UK National Residues Control Plan (NRCP) was agreed in time for 2009. Samples were allocated to Northern Ireland on the basis of their production. All information in relation to the sampling in GB was captured on the VMD’s database. Key Performance indicators were defined in SLAs/contracts with the competent authorities involved in the sampling and analysis for the NRCP. Performance was monitored through the VMD’s database. A report of the UK results for the NRCP (including the follow-up action taken) will be provided to the Commission, via the EU database at

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=2791

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=2536

http://www.vmd.gov.uk/General/Enforce/notices.htm


Page 79

ec.europa.eu/residues/SancoResidues/, in line with the deadline of 31 August 2010. In 2009 around 33,900, samples were tested under the UK NRCP. The results show no evidence of the use of synthetic growth promoters. On-farm investigations into confirmed residues of natural hormones found no evidence of abuse for growth promotion purposes. None of the non-compliant residues of authorised veterinary medicines were considered to be a risk to human health.

6.70 Non-complaint residues were confirmed for antibiotics and anthelmintics. A

summary of the results is provided in Table 6.10. The incidences of non-compliant anbitiotic residues in poultry milk and eggs were low. Investigations into non-compliant samples found no evidence of the mis-use/ abuse of hormonal growth promoters, beta-agonists or Annex IV substances.

Table 6.10: Summary of non-complaint residues for antibiotics and anthelmintics in UK in 2009

Residue Animal Type No of Samples Non-compliant Antibiotic Calves 202 4

Antibiotic Pigs 1482 4*

Anthelmintics Cattle 1116 3

Anthelmintics Salmon 92 3

Anthelmintics Sheep 1419 2

* Residues were due to the animals being sent to slaughter within the withdrawal period and also cross-contamination of feed on farm.

6.71 A farm was targeted at the abattoir following a repeat of non-compliance for

residues of chlortetracycline in pigs. Further target samples were taken and a total of 200 pigs were held at the abattoir pending the outcome of the results. The samples confirmed as non-compliant and the consignment of pigs was subsequently destroyed.

6.72 A joint follow up investigation was undertaken by Animal Health and the Animal

Medicines Inspectorate (AMI). This established that the producer had given the pigs medicated feed up to the point of slaughter and, therefore, the withdrawal period was not being observed. The AMI advised the producer during the meeting of improvements needed to avoid further non-compliant results. Intensified checks were carried out and further samples have been taken at the abattoir and all were compliant.

Environmental contaminants and insecticides 6.73 Non-compliant residues were confirmed for heavy metals confirmed in cattle,

sheep and wild deer; residues due to the age of the animals. Incidence for cattle was 5 out of 59 tests and incidence for sheep was 5 out of 48 tests. The non-compliant sample for wild deer was likely to be due to the shot that killed the animal. There was one non-compliant sample for DDT in eggs which was most likely to be due to a contaminated orchard on the free range farm. One honey sample was also non-compliant for Dichlorobenzene; this was due to old honey fed to overwintering bees.

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/residues/SancoResidues/


Page 80

6.74 A programme of testing for nitrate in lettuce and spinach, in accordance with

Article 7.1 and 7.2 of Commission Regulation (EC) 1881/2006, was conducted throughout 2009. A report is in preparation for submission to the Commission by June 2010 in accordance with Article 9.1.

Feed and food incidents in 2009 6.75 During 2009, the Agency investigated 1,208 feed and food related incidents in

the UK. Although this represents a slight fall compared with 2008, the number of incidents reported has remained fairly constant for the past four years. The incidents included the high profile case of salmonella associated with some eggs from Spain and a successful prosecution of an unapproved meat plant operating in West Yorkshire. The major categories of incidents were: microbiological incidents (18%); environmental contamination (17%); natural chemical contamination (12%); on-farm incidents (12%). The number and types of incidents reported is summarised in Table 6.11.

6.76 Where appropriate, action was taken by the FSA to ensure that consumers'

interests were protected in relation to food safety. This included the issue of 91 Food Alerts91 including 41 Allergy Alerts. These alerts give consumers and enforcement officers the information that they need directly by email or SMS text message as well as online. More detailed information is available in the FSA's annual report of incidents at: food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/incidents09.pdf.

Table 6.11: Summary of incidents reported in the UK in 2009

Incident type Number Allergens 86

Animal feed (on market) 10

Biocides 2

Counterfeit products 7

Environmental contamination 211

Food contact materials 50

Illegal import/export 14

Irradiated ingredient 6

Labelling/documentation 77

Microbiological contamination 218

Natural chemical contamination 150

On-farm 144

91 Food Alerts inform local authorities and consumers about problems associated with feed and food and, in some

cases, provide details of specific action to be taken. These are issued under two categories, 'Food Alerts: for Action' and 'Food Alerts: for Information'. More information on the Food Alert system is available at: food.gov.uk/enforcement/alerts/

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/incidents09.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/alerts/


Page 81

Incident type Number Pesticides 28

Physical contamination 56

Process contaminants 19

Radiological 7

TSE 9

Use of an unauthorised ingredient 70

Veterinary medicines 36

Water quality 8

Total 1208

Official controls in the animal health sector Competent authorities 6.77 In Great Britain, AH is responsible for veterinary controls in the area of animal

health. In Northern Ireland, this role is undertaken by DARD. Enforcement of legislation is mainly the responsibility of local authorities. In England and Wales, this is organised through a Framework Agreement between Defra, the Welsh Assembly Government and LACORS.92 Tables 6.12 and 6.13 provide details of the Animal Health and DARD Veterinary Service inspections carried out during 2009.

6.78 Defra has a legal responsibility under Section 80 of the Animal Health Act 1981

(as amended)93 to produce an annual report for Parliament. The report covers

England and Wales, and includes the enforcement activity of the local authorities (e.g. details on legal proceedings which have resulted in criminal convictions under animal health and welfare related legislation) and the compensation paid out for animals slaughtered to prevent the spread of animal disease. The 2009 report 'Return of expenditure incurred and prosecutions taken under the Animal Health Act 1981 and incidences of diseases in imported animals' is available at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/deliver/annualreport-parlia.htm A separate report is produced by the Scottish Government, and is available at: scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Agriculture/animal-welfare/Diseases/GenControls/Enforcement

92 The Framework Agreement is available at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/deliver/pdf/ahw-

framework2009.pdf 93 Animal Health Act 1981, c 22.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/deliver/annualreport-parlia.htm

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Agriculture/animal-welfare/Diseases/GenControls/Enforcement




Page 82

Table 6.12: Details of the Animal Health inspections in Great Britain carried out during 2009 Disease Status No of inspections No of control measures Bovine TB (bTB) *

One of the goals of the Government strategic framework for the sustainable control of bovine tuberculosis for Great Britain is to improve availability of information on bTB and raise awareness and understanding of bTB issues amongst all stakeholders. Public information focuses on improved compliance, emphasising on the benefits of timely testing of cattle as an important element of control. The annual review of Parish Testing Intervals for TB in England and Wales was completed and intervals calculated in line with Annex A of Council Directive 64/432/EEC94 (as amended). On 1 October 2008 the Welsh Assembly Government introduced, as part of its TB Eradication Programme, the TB Health Check Wales with the intention of testing every herd in Wales over a 15 month period.

57,853 surveillance herd tests were completed. bTB was confirmed in 2,468 herds with 91 incidents remaining unclassified pending culture results. A total of 36,322 animals were slaughtered. TB was confirmed in 12,045 of the suspect cases. The method of measuring the success of completing tracing action for animals traced from breakdowns changed for the reporting year 2009/10. All tracing action was completed within an average of 24.7 days for 210,360 animals traced from breakdowns, where bTB had been confirmed between April and December 2009. The final results of the Health Check Wales showed that a total of 11,795 HCW tests were required and that Animal Health completed 11,761 (99%) of these tests by the 31 December 2009. Vigorous management of the remaining 34 tests took place in order to resolve as soon as possible.

• 4,574 new incidents recorded, movement restrictions were served within the 2 working day target for 1,620 out of 1,639 (98.7%) herds that were not already under restrictions.

• 1,060 slaughterhouse suspect cases were reported during 2009. Movement restrictions were served within the 2 working day target for 744 out of 750 (99.2%) herds of origin that were not already under restrictions.

• At the end of 2009 2,437 herds were under restriction due to the zero tolerance policy.95

• All high risk cattle movements are centrally monitored to ensure that cattle are subject to a pre-movement TB test. 92% of all consignments of cattle eligible for a pre-movement test in 2009 were compliant. Animal Health undertook a random and targeted check of non-compliant holdings. Herd owners were issued with official warnings and advisory letters. In 2009 1,122* of the non-compliant movements were investigated and 12 cases were referred to the Local Authority for further action.

* A lot of manual checking is carried out by the PRMT Unit on the holdings selected and a good percentage are found to be compliant, by checking CTS, AMLS, Vetnet etc, without the need to send a letter to the farmer for more information.

94 Corrigendum to Council Directive No 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (OJ No 121, 29.7.1964). Official

Journal L 120, 13.5.1975, 13-13.

http://defraweb/animalh/tb/strategy/newstrategy.htm





Page 83

Disease Status No of inspections No of control measures BSE

The incidence of BSE in the UK continued to decline. Animal Health received 47 notifications of suspect BSE in cattle during 2009.

37 (97.4%) inspections of reported cases were carried out no later than the following day.

Movement restrictions were served and passports seized within 5 working days for 32 out of 34 offspring (94.1%)and 585 out of 619 cohort animals (94.4%) from passive surveillance suspect cases and active surveillance confirmed cases.

Scrapie

Statutory EU controls on flocks and herds with confirmed cases of Scrapie are implemented through the Compulsory Scrapie Flocks Scheme (CSFS).

54 suspect cases of Scrapie in sheep or goats were investigated within the 2 days target. 14 cases were negative, 25 were atypical cases and 15 cases were attributed to flocks already under CSFS.

22 flocks are currently in the CSFS with 10 new additions in 2009. 3,287 animals were blood sampled and 542 animals culled.

Salmonella

National Control Plans for Salmonella in Poultry (chicken breeding, laying and broiler flocks) Under the Control of Salmonella in Poultry Order (CSPO) 2007, and The Control of Salmonella in Broiler Flocks Order (CSBO) 2009 (and equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) Animal Health are responsible for the collection of specified official samples to be tested for Salmonella in GB. For laying flocks official samples are taken by an Independent Body (National Britannia for Lion Code producers96) and Animal Health staff (for non Lion Code producers)

Across all adult breeding, laying and broiler flocks all routine official inspections were completed as per the requirement of legislation.

• A total of 1,378 adult breeding flocks were

subject to at least one Official Control Sampling during the year.

• Across all adult laying flocks 1354 routine annual official inspections were completed.

• Across all adult broiler flocks a total of 127 routine annual official inspections were conducted.

• 2 adult breeding flocks were confirmed as infected with S. Typhimurium or S. Enteritidis during 2009. Mandatory slaughter was carried out under the Animal Health Act.

• 10 adult laying flocks were confirmed

as infected with S. Typhimurium or S. Enteritidis during 2009. From 1 January 2009 eggs from positive flocks cannot be sent for human consumption unless they have been heat treated.

• 12 broiler flocks were identified with S.

Typhimurium or S. Enteritidis during 2009.

Artificial Insemination (Bulls and boars)

During 2009 Animal Health carried out 113 approval visits. Also a total of 1002 boars and 214 bulls were sampled.

95 Animal Health operates a zero tolerance policy on overdue tests, where herds not tested by the due date are automatically restricted until the tests are completed. The

VETNET IT management and support system, automatically identifies herds with overdue tests and generates reports that are used to issue herd restriction notices and notify Local Authorities.

96 Information on Lion Quality is available at lioneggfarms.co.uk/information/british-lion-quality-code-of-practice/ and lioneggfarms.co.uk/information/british-lion-quality/

http://www.lioneggfarms.co.uk/information/british-lion-quality-code-of-practice/

http://www.lioneggfarms.co.uk/information/british-lion-quality/


Page 84

Disease Status No of inspections No of control measures Animal By-Products controls

Animal Health are responsible for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1774/200297 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption as amended and of the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003. Animal Health approves animal by-product premises and deliver a programme of inspections to monitor compliance. The frequency of the inspections is determined in accordance with risk assessments agreed with the policy partners.

There are currently 2,527 approved premises in Great Britain and during 2009 Animal Health completed 6,734 inspections out of the 9,780 scheduled.

• A total of 526 inspections were carried out at premises that receive international catering waste. 14 operators who land international catering waste were found to be non-compliant: - 7 have since been re-inspected and

were compliant - 3 sites are subject to ongoing

monitoring - 1 site has yet to be re-visited but was

referred to another agency . - 3 sites have yet to be re-visited .

Serious Major unsatisfactory results were recorded at 3 inspections • Two where the handling and disposal

of Specific Risk Material (SRM) was not to the required standards and both were resolved within target at a subsequent follow-up inspection.

• The third was resolved by suspension. Major unsatisfactory results were recorded at 140 inspections where the handling of SRM, structure, operation or record keeping was not to the required standard. In 128 cases the problems have been resolved within target at a subsequent follow-up inspection or the plants are no longer operating. Between January – March 2009 minor unsatisfactory results were captured locally rather than on SRABPI98. From April 2009, SRABPI had been updated so that Minor non-compliance visits could be recorded. During this period 331 minor unsatisfactory visits were recorded. In 307 cases the problems were resolved within target either fixed at initial visit, letter or a subsequent follow-up visit.


Page 85

Table 6.13: Details of DARD Veterinary Service inspections carried out in NI during 2009

Disease Status Number of inspections Number of control measures

Bovine TB (bTB)*

In Northern Ireland one of the DARD strategic goals is to eradicate or considerably reduce the level of animal diseases that have important public health or economic consequences. The Veterinary Service Business Plan seeks to ensure the quality and effectiveness of programme delivery is maximised through good planning, training, applying challenging standards, audit and management. Major emphasis has been placed on training and education of staff and delivery partners, utilising audit to highlight areas for improvement.

In Northern Ireland during 2009, 23,031 herds underwent a herd level tuberculin test and 1,601,500 individual animals were TB tested.

In Northern Ireland there were 1,293 new breakdown herds during 2009 resulting from this surveillance and 8,198 reactor animals were removed. To October 2009, 470 diseased animals were disclosed at routine slaughter.

BSE

Active and passive surveillance for BSE is carried out in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 999/200199 and the TSE Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 (as amended). Note that responsibility for sampling of fallen bovines was passed to the industry on 9 November 2009. The incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland continued to decline. DARD Veterinary Service received 12 notifications of suspect BSE in cattle during 2009, all of which were examined. Of the 12 report cases in Northern Ireland, 8 were restricted and compulsory slaughtered as clinical suspects. The remainder were

Number of animals tested in which BSE was not confirmed

Number of animals tested in which BSE was confirmed

Fallen stock survey 27,083 2 Emergency slaughter for fresh meat plants (over 48 months) 71

0

Ante mortem failures at fresh meat plants (over 48 months) 218

0

Healthy slaughtered animals at fresh meat plants (over 48 months) 77,832

1

Cohorts of BSE cases 27 0

BSE offspring cases (born after 01.08.96) 2 0

97 Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for

human consumption (OJ L 273, 10.10.2002 ) Official Journal L 30, 3.2.2007, 3. 98 System for Recording Animal By Product (ABP) Information – Defra’s database for recording and monitoring ABP controls in Great Britain 99 Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible

spongiform encephalopathies. Official Journal L 147, 31.5.2001, 1–40.


Page 86

Disease Status Number of inspections Number of control measures examined, but not diagnosed as affected by BSE. In Northern Ireland movement restrictions were applied on DARDs Animal and Public Health Information System (APHIS) to all relevant offspring and cohort animals within 24 hours of notification of the suspect animal or positive rapid BSE test result for active surveillance cases. Subsequent to this, formal movement restriction notices were served for the 13 offspring and 293 cohort animals of the clinical suspects and active surveillance cases with a positive rapid BSE.

Total number of inspections: 105,233 Total number of control measures: 3

Scrapie

Active and passive surveillance for Scrapie is carried out in accordance with Council Regulation EC 999/2001 and the TSE Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 (as amended). Two suspect cases of Scrapie in sheep or goats were investigated during 2009.

Scrapie survey & number of animals tested: • Sheep abattoir survey: 603 • Sheep Fallen stock survey: 236 • Scrapie monitored flocks: 650 • Monitoring of infected flocks: 26 • Goat fallen stock survey: 3 Total: 1,518 Passive surveillance: 2

Total number of confirmed classical or atypical Scrapie cases: • Surveys 0 • Passive 1 (classical) • 1 flock brought into CSFS with 90

animals blood sampled and 31 animals culled.

National Control Plan (NCP) for salmonella in chicken breeding flocks, laying flocks, broiler flocks

During 2009 the NCP for salmonella in chicken breeding, layer and broiler flocks was implemented in the NI the Control of Salmonella in Poultry Scheme Order (NI) 2008 100and The Control of Salmonella in Broiler Flocks Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2009101. DARD Veterinary Service are responsible for the collection of the official samples in breeding flocks, laying flocks and broiler flocks. Operator sampling is the responsibility of the operator.

Across all three poultry production sectors: • 259 breeding flocks • 150 laying flocks and • 32 broiler flocks were tested by having official samples taken.

No breeding flocks were confirmed positive with Salmonella enteritidis (SE) or Salmonella typhimurium (ST) in 2009, giving a prevalence of 0%. Seven laying flocks were confirmed positive with SE or ST in 2009, giving a prevalence of 4.66% (7/150). No broiler flocks were confirmed positive in 2009 with SE or ST, giving a prevalence of 0%. A further 6 flocks were identified with “other” salmonella.

100 opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2008/nisr_20080263_en_1 101 opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2009/nisr_20090205_en_1




Page 87

Disease Status Number of i nspections Number of control measures

Artificial Insemination (Bulls and boars)

Artificial insemination in Northern Ireland is controlled by The Artificial insemination of Cattle Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1988 (as amended). Artificial Insemination in pigs is controlled by the Artificial insemination (Pigs) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1978 and the Artificial Insemination of Pigs (EEC) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993.

There are: • 2 EU approved cattle semen collection centres • 4 Cattle approved semen main stores • 3 pig semen collection centres. They are inspected every 6 months

Animal By-Products (ABP) controls

EU Regulation 1774/2002102 is implemented by the Animal By-Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003. DARD VS approve animal by-product premises and deliver a programme of inspections to monitor compliance. The frequency of the inspections is determined in accordance with risk assessments agreed with the policy partners.

There were 247 approved premises in Northern Ireland. There were 217 inspections carried out on these premises.

There were 5 revocations of approved premises during the year. This was because the premises no longer dealt with ABPs.

Aujeszky’s Disease (AD)

In 2009 Northern Ireland’s AD eradication scheme was officially recognised by the EU and was listed on Annex II of Commission Decision 2008/185103. DARD is currently working towards attaining official freedom from Aujeszky’s Disease (Annex I of Commission Decision 2008/185)

In December 2009 there were 738 operational herds. All breeding herds (approximately 500) which were already AD free completed a monitoring test (10% sample of breeding stock, min 6 to max 40 samples required on each epidemiologically separate premises). Five breeding herds completed a 100% sample of breeding stock to progress to AD free status. In addition 251 herds presenting pigs for slaughter at Northern Ireland abattoirs were blood sampled (10 pigs per herd).

AD is a notifiable disease in Northern Ireland. Movement controls are in place. Pigs can only move to herds of a similar or lower AD status. The APHIS database is programmed to highlight any incompatible moves. Audits are completed on an ongoing basis to check that movement rules are adhered to. 1 seropositive animal identified in 2009 – sow was slaughtered and herd subsequently tested clear.

102 Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for

human consumption ( OJ L 273, 10.10.2002 ) Official Journal L 30, 3.2.2007, 3. 103 Commission Decision 2008/185/EC on additional guarantees in intra-Community trade of pigs relating to Aujeszky’s disease and criteria to provide information on this

disease (notified under document number C(2008) 669)) Official Journal L 59, 4.3.2008, 19–30.


Page 88

Disease Status Number of inspections Number of control measures

Brucella abortus in cattle

Northern Ireland does not currently have officially Brucellosis free status. Disease is confirmed on a positive bacteriological culture and the presence of confirmed infection continues. DARD carries out annual serological testing of all herds with eligible animals, except for entirely dairy herds which undergo biennial testing with additional testing of bulk milk samples. Additional surveillance is carried out by DARD through pre-movement testing, abattoir surveillance and post abortion sampling. Abortion notification to DARD is a legislative requirement for herd owners.

In 2009 there were 26,287 herds in NI with 946,438 eligible animals. 23,135 herds were tested which equated to 888,898 animal tested serologically. With bulk milk sampling included a total of 946,438 animals were tested for brucellosis in 2009.

In 2009, there were 71 new brucellosis reactor herds, with a total of 116 reactor animals. 18.6% of reactor herds had infection confirmed on culture. A total of 20 herds were depopulated as a disease control measure.


Page 89

Table 6.14: Exotic Notifiable Disease Investigations during 2009104 in Great Britain

Disease Negative investigations Confirmed investigations

Anthrax 3 0

Aujeszky's Disease 10 0

Notifiable Avian Disease 41 0

Bluetongue 86 0

Porcine Brucellosis 6 0

Contagious Equine Metritis 0 2

Equine Infectious Anaemia 1 0

Foot and Mouth Disease 9 0

Glanders 6 0

Rabies 7 0

Bat Rabies 31 1

Swine Fever 2 0

Vesicular Stomatitis 3 0

Northern Ireland 6.79 During 2009 DARD Veterinary Service enforcement actions led to 32 herd

keepers having cattle slaughtered, or carcases disposed of, without payment due to animals or carcases being unidentified or due to identity queries, i.e. suspected tampered tags. The figure has reduced significantly since 2008 (71 herd keepers) suggesting that enforcement activities and their associated media coverage are influencing herd keeper compliance. In addition, two herd keepers were convicted due to non-compliance in relation to medicine records. A summary of investigations carried out in 2009 is provided on Table 6.15.

104 More details available at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/ndi/ndi2009.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/ndi/ndi2009.htm


Page 90

Table 6.15: Progress Summary of DARD Veterinary Service enforcement investigations during 2009

Work Programme Under investigation

File being prepared

File passed to Public Prosecution Service

Remains on file

Total

Animal By-Products 1 2 3

Brucellosis 1 2 3

Identification, Registration & Movement

10 2 5 17

Trade of Animals & Animal Products

2 1 3

Tuberculosis 3 2 5

Veterinary Public Health & Food Safety

2 2

Welfare of Animals 3 11 1 14 Total investigations 20 2 25 1 48

Cattle identification and registration 6.80 In accordance with Regulation 1082/2003105,

there is an annual programme of Cattle Identification Inspections in United Kingdom for which Defra and the Agriculture/Rural Affairs Departments in the devolved administrations are responsible. Defra shares responsibility for cattle identification and registration with the RPA and local authorities (in England), the Welsh Assembly Government Rural Inspectorate Team, Scottish Government and DARD officials. The programme runs from 1 May to 30 June. All inspections were completed on time in 2009 and the report was submitted to the Commission by the 31 August 2009 deadline. The report can be accessed at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/movements/cattle/ciipgb2008.htm

6.81 During the inspection year 2008/2009 132 holdings were placed under temporary

whole herd restrictions and 427 animals across 5 holdings were destroyed as part of sanctions imposed under EC Regulation 494/98106. The annual report to the Commission for 2009 shows that, of the 10% of inspected holdings:

• nearly half (48%) were fully compliant; • a further 25% had only one breach, and • just over a quarter (27%) had more than one breach.

Only 137 holdings (0.15% of registered cattle holdings) were subject to official sanctions for non-compliance.

105 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2003/l_156/l_15620030625en00090012.pdf 106 europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31998R0494&model=guichett

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/movements/cattle/ciipgb2008.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2003/l_156/l_15620030625en00090012.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31998R0494&model=guichett


Page 91

Sheep and goat identification and movement reporting 6.82 In Great Britain, Defra and the Agriculture/Rural Affairs Departments in the

Devolved Administrations are the competent authorities for sheep and goat identification and movement reporting. In Northern Ireland, this role is carried out by DARD. In accordance with Regulation 1505/2006107, there is an annual programme of sheep and goat identification inspections in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The programme runs from 1 January to 31 December. All inspections for 2009 were completed on time and the report will be submitted to the Commission by the deadline of 31 August 2010. The report will be available at defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/movements/goats/inspection.htm.

Bee health controls 6.83 During 2009, details of the inspections’ programmes are available at

secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/. The website also includes interactive maps showing infected apiaries. A summary of the NBU inspections carried out in 2009 is provided in Table 6.16.

6.84 Honey samples are also collected under statutory residue monitoring

programmes on behalf of Defra’s VMD. The stipulated number of honey samples under the National Surveillance Scheme, as directed under the Sampling plan for 2008 were collected to the required deadlines. Approx 100 samples were collected under Council Directive 96/23/EC108. Key performance indicators were met in 2009.

Table 6.16: Summary of the bee health control inspections carried out in England and Wales in

2009

Disease Status England Wales Total Foul Brood Disease

An increase in the number of Bee Inspectors results in the highest level of inspections since 1998.

33,871 colonies in 6,346 apiaries were inspected

6,237 colonies in 1,340 apiaries were inspected

American Foul Brood disease (AFB)

Although slightly higher, overall these figures are similar to the last few years. Control of AFB is very effective and disease incidence in recent years is at its lowest levels since controls began.

74 cases were confirmed in 48 apiaries, being 0.22 % of colonies inspected

19 cases were confirmed in 8 apiaries, being 0.30% of colonies inspected

107 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:280:0003:0006:EN:PDF 108 Council Directive 96/23/EC on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and

animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC. Official Journal L 125, 23.5.1996, 10-32.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/movements/goats/inspection.htm

https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/



Page 92

Disease Status England Wales European Foul Brood Disease (EFB)

European foul brood disease is widespread in England and Wales, and there are ongoing research projects, which aim to better understand the disease and develop effective control methods for beekeepers. The overall incidence of EFB has been in decline since 2000 apart from an increase in 2007/8.



Pyrethroid resistant varroa mites

These mites are to be found in most regions of England and Wales. The NBU is continuing with training events to advise beekeepers on appropriate control methods.

5 tests were carried out with 1 being positive

0 tests

Exotic pests

The NBU has continued searching to identify the exotic pests Aethina tumida (Small Hive Beetle) and Tropilaelaps mites. Fourteen beekeeper voluntary suspect samples were also submitted. Neither of these pests has been confirmed to be present in the U.K. Surveillance programmes and use of at risk apiaries and sentinel hives will continue.

1,483 colonies in 456 apiaries were specifically examined - none were positive

334 colonies in 87 apiaries were specifically examined - none were positive

Scotland 6.85 Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture109 provides a diagnostic service to

beekeepers to confirm the presence of Varroa or notifiable bee pests or disease. A summary of the inspections carried out in 2008 is provided in Table 6.17.

Table 6.17: Summary of bee health control inspections carried out in Scotland in 2009

Disease Outcome of Inspection European Foul Brood 255 hives tested positive from 56 apiaries

American Foul Brood 121 hives tested positive from 34 apiaries

Northern Ireland 6.86 DARD’s Quality Assurance Branch provides an inspection service for notifiable

bee pests and diseases to Northern Ireland beekeepers, while the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) provides a diagnostic service to confirm the

109 Further details are available at sasa.gov.uk/

http://www.sasa.gov.uk/


Page 93

presence of bee pests or diseases. A summary of the inspections carried out in 2008 is provided in Table 6.18 below.

Table 6.18: Summary of bee health control inspections carried out in Northern Ireland in 2009

Disease Outcome of Inspection

American Foul Brood disease 6 Apiaries with 29 colonies were confirmed to have the disease. These along with the hive contents were subsequently destroyed and burnt.

European Foul Brood disease No confirmed incidents of the disease.

Exotic Pests Surveys continued for the exotic pests Aethina tumida (Small Hive Beetle) and Tropilaelaps mite using corriboard traps and samples of hive debris. At risk apiaries in close proximity to ports and those importing were targeted.

Pyrethroid resistant varroa mites

Sampling continues for Pyrethroid resistant varroa mites but no positive cases were recorded.

6.87 Two honey samples both with satisfactory analysis were collected under

statutory residue monitoring programmes on behalf of Defra’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

Aquatic animal health controls 6.88 Longstanding European Community legislative controls on aquatic animal health

were replaced in 2008 by a new Council Directive 2006/88/EC110 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals. This Directive was implemented into national legislation through The Aquatic Animal Health (England and Wales) Regulations 2009111 and through parallel legislation in Scotland112 and Northern Ireland113.

6.89 Responsibility for the enforcement of the EU aquatic animal health regime lies

with Defra in England and with Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government and DARD in the respective Devolved Administrations. Aquatic animal health controls are undertaken by the Fish Health Inspectorate of Cefas on behalf of Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government. The Fish Health Inspectorate of Marine Scotland Science114 undertakes the control activities on behalf of the Scottish Government and the Fish Health Unit on behalf of DARD in Northern Ireland.

6.90 The respective legislation brought into force a number of new requirements in

respect of the control of aquatic animal diseases, including broadening the scope 110 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:328:0014:0056:en:PDF 111 www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20090463_en_1 112 www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2009/ssi_20090085_en_1 113 www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2009/nisr_20090129_en_1 114 www.marlab.ac.uk/

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:328:0014:0056:en:PDF

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20090463_en_1

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2009/ssi_20090085_en_1


http://www.marlab.ac.uk/


Page 94

of businesses subject to regulation, and imposing additional responsibilities in terms of the prevention of diseases. All Aquaculture Production Businesses (APB’s) in the UK were authorised by the competent authorities on the enactment of the Regulations, and subject to specific conditions of authorisation according to the nature of the business and the risks presented through their business activities. Information and advice on the new legislative requirements was published, this included guidance on the production of documented biosecurity measures plans for finfish and shellfish farmers and traders. In addition minimum acceptable standards for biosecurity log books, fish and shellfish movement records, aquatic animal medicine records, and transport record books were established.

6.91 During 2009 all APB’s were inspected following the enactment of the Aquatic

Animal Health Regulations to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. In addition a risk based model was developed for disease surveillance which is used to inform decision on the frequency of inspections depending upon the risk of the introduction of disease to a business and the likelihood and impact of the spread of diseases from an APB. This assists competent authorities in the UK to target resources towards monitoring those APB’s that present a greater risk in terms of the introduction and spread of disease, and maintain a lighter surveillance requirement on businesses that pose a lower risk.

6.92 An internet-based register of APBs was made available through public

websites115,116 as required by Commission Decision 2008/392/EC117. In addition, in England and Wales the Fish Health Inspectorate is continuing to work with other government agencies, and in particular the Environment Agency, in the development of a comprehensive and accurate register of ‘put and take’ fisheries. This register will facilitate the better control of disease outbreaks in wild fish stocks.

6.93 In 2009 the planned official control programme was successfully completed. The

successful completion of the official control programme supports the maintenance of approved zone status for UK for a number of serious diseases of fish and shellfish, and thereby makes a significant contribution to protecting our high aquatic animal health status. There was a drop in shellfish inspections in NI during 2009 due to staff resource issues. This will be rectified in 2010.

6.94 There were no outbreaks of exotic diseases of aquatic animals in UK in 2009.

Outbreaks of non-exotic notifiable diseases, including those detected in imported fish, were dealt with by the official service in a prompt and efficient manner, reducing the potential for spread of disease, and so protect the health of wild and farmed aquatic animals. Further good progress was made in the control and eradication of non-exotic diseases under the additional guarantees programme,

115 efishbusiness.co.uk/news/090803.asp 116 frs-scotland.gov.uk/Delivery/standalone.aspx?contentid=3333 117 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008D0392:EN:NOT

http://www.efishbusiness.co.uk/news/090803.asp

http://www.frs-scotland.gov.uk/Delivery/standalone.aspx?contentid=3333

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008D0392:EN:NOT


Page 95

and in the maintenance of freedom from exotic pathogens such as Gyrodactylus salaris. There was a number of unplanned control activities undertaken in 2009 associated with outbreaks of notifiable diseases. These included the detection of: • spring viraemia of carp (SVC) in imported ornamental fish; • 10 outbreaks of koi herpesvirus disease (KHV) in managed fisheries; • 3 outbreak of KHV in wholesalers’ premises; and • 1 outbreak of bacterial kidney disease (BKD) on a fish farm. • Infectious Salmon Anaemia outbreak in Shetland, Scotland. All of these disease outbreaks were subject to control by the competent authorities. There was no impact on the planned control activities.

6.95 The overall level of compliance with statutory obligations by the aquaculture

industry and related sectors is good. This reflects the investment that the competent authorities make in providing guidance and advice to industry. For example new certification requirements for trade in aquatic animals into the EU were introduced in 2009 following a six month transition period. During transition period competent authorities provided advice and guidance to industry within the UK and to the official services in third countries in order to ensure that the new certification requirements were correctly implemented. This resulted in a good level of compliance with the new requirements by third country exporting countries and fewer enforcement notices issued to importers. Details of non-compliances found in England and Wales during 2009 are provided in Table 6.19 and non-compliances found in Scotland are provided in Table 6.20.

Table 6.19: Details of non-compliances found in aquatic animal health in England and Wales

during 2009

Category of non-compliances Number Enforcement actions Import / Export 248 • 241 enforcement notices

• 3 formal warnings • 3 advice given • 1 prosecution pending

Failing to report mortalities 1 Advice given

Obstruction 1 Ongoing investigation

Failing to comply with conditions of Licence 1 Formal warning

Administrative anomalies 18 Informal warning and advice given


Page 96

Table 6.20: Details of non-compliances found in aquatic animal health in Scotland during 2009118

Category of non-compliances Number Enforcement actions Trade irregularities (import/export) 13 • 4 Regulation 14(3) issued, imposing

restrictions over imported stock until the irregularity was resolved.

• 9 incidents of minor issues in health certificates – advice issued to resolve the issues.

Failure to Register 5 All resolved by advice.

Enhanced Inspection under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007119

69 A Review of the recommendations made is being conducted and some follow up inspections are pending

Northern Ireland 6.96 Aquaculture activities in Northern Ireland are tightly controlled by means of a Fish

Culture Licence issued by DARD under the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. Compliance is high in this sector due to the official controls imposed and regular inspection visits. There was one warning letter issued in 2009 in respect of a shellfish movement from Republic of Ireland without appropriate documentation. No further action was required.

6.97 DARD had extensive contact with the Marine Institute in the Republic of Ireland

regarding potential outbreaks and preventative measures to be taken in respect of the emerging disease Oyster Herpesvirus 1 (OsHV1-µvar) which causes mortalities in Pacific oysters. Investigations of a number of mortalities of Pacific oysters in England and Wales, and in Scotland revealed no evidence for the presence of OsHV-1 µvar in Great Britain.

Official controls in the animal welfare sector Competent authorities 6.98 Responsibility for animal welfare controls on-farm, at slaughter and during

transport lies with Defra in England and with Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government and DARD in the Devolved Administrations. Details of the control activities of these authorities during 2009 are outlined below.

118 Please note there are no recorded instances of record keeping anomalies (documentation) for 2009. Scottish

Government stopped the process of issuing non-compliance letters during 2009, and the specific authorization conditions are being established following the introduction of new legislation.

119 opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2007/pdf/asp_20070012_en.pdf

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2007/pdf/asp_20070012_en.pdf


Page 97

Control activities in 2009 6.99 On-farm animal welfare controls are primarily the responsibility of AH in Great

Britain and DARD in Northern Ireland. Welfare controls during transport are carried out by AH and local authorities in Great Britain and DARD in Northern Ireland. Defra and the Scottish Government have delegated the responsibility for animal welfare implementation in slaughterhouses to the MHS. All welfare inspections where a non-compliance is disclosed, result in a letter being sent explaining what the problem is and advising how to resolve the problem. Revisits are carried out at a suitable interval following a risk assessment to monitor progress. When necessary, improvement notices are served under the appropriate legislation. In severe cases a report including a witness statement will be submitted so that a prosecution can be considered. During 2009 Animal Health provided 195 witness statements to the enforcement bodies (Local Authorities/ Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) in support of legal action.

Great Britain On-farm animal welfare120 6.100 In 2009 the level of non-compliance on farms was similar to that recorded in

previous year. The on-farm inspection programme which was restructured in 2007, because of the introduction of welfare into cross compliance, remained the same in 2009. The inspection programme was successfully delivered overall. Defra and the Devolved Administrations issued public consultation documents on proposals for new regulations and a code of practice to implement the new EU legislation - Council Directive 2007/43121 on the welfare of meat chickens.122

6.101 The new powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Animal Health and Welfare

Act 2006 in Scotland) continued to be used where appropriate and on several occasions the powers to remove animals at risk of suffering were exercised. Improvement notices (care notices in Scotland) were also successfully used to require owners and or keepers of animals to provide an adequate standard of care as required by the relevant Act.

6.102 ADAS123, on behalf of Defra, organised a series of welfare campaigns to promote

farmers’ understanding of topical welfare issues in response to industry’s continued interest in keeping up to date with best practice on animal welfare and husbandry. Details are provided in Table 6.21. Defra continue to contribute to an increased awareness and better understanding of many of the key welfare issues.

120 General information is available at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/onfarm/index.htm 121 Council Directive 2007/43/EC laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production

(Text with EEA relevance) Official Journal L 182, 12.7.2007, 19–28. 122 defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/onfarm/meatchks.htm 123 Information on ADAS is available at: adas.co.uk/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/onfarm/index.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/onfarm/meatchks.htm

http://www.adas.co.uk/


Page 98

Table 6.21: Summary of animal welfare campaigns during 2009

Advisory Campaigns arranged in 2009/10 financial year Cattle Managing the dairy cow at calving

Sheep Rearing more lambs – better welfare and improved returns

Pigs Tail biting workshops for pig producers in England

Poultry Improving welfare in free range egg production systems through better pasture management

Poultry Broiler Directive workshops

6.103 Animal Health completed a total of 9,988 on farm inspections at 3,790 visits

during 2009. All complaints and allegations of poor welfare on specific farms were treated as a matter of urgency. 1,887 out of the 2,041 complaint inspections (92.5%) were carried out within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint. Inspection visits are classified into four score categories - A to D. The A and B scored inspections do not require any action. Details of C and D scored inspections during 2009 are provided in Table 6.22 below. In 2009 the level of non-compliance on farms was similar to that recorded in previous years.

Table 6.22: Details of C & D scores from animal welfare inspections during 2009

Type of inspections Number

A score of C is recorded when there is a non-compliance with the welfare legislation, welfare potentially or actually compromised but no unnecessary pain, suffering or distress identified

Non compliance with the legislation and potential compromise of animal welfare was found in 3,466 assessments at 1,732 inspections. 778 Advisory letters instructing the farmer on action to take to resolve the problems were issued.

A score of D is recorded when unnecessary suffering was disclosed at any AH welfare inspection.

Results show that unnecessary suffering was disclosed in 781 out of a total of 95,479 assessments. The majority of infringements related to inadequate animal care, inspection of livestock and staffing. The national average number of days taken to resolve D scores in Great Britain was 18 days against a target of less than 21 average days.

Animal welfare during transport124 6.104 Article 27 of Council Regulation 1/2005125 on the welfare of animals during

transport and related operations requires the competent authority to carry out non-discriminatory checks of animals, means of transport and accompanying documents on an adequate proportion of animals transported in any year. Allowance is made for inspection levels to be increased where infringements have been found. An Annual Report of Enforcement Activity is made to the European Commission by 30 June each year, reporting on the previous calendar year’s activities. The Commission requires this report to be split down by

124 General information available at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/transport/index.htm 125 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32005R0001:en:NOT

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/transport/index.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32005R0001:en:NOT


Page 99

activities at departure premises, destination premises, during transport, at markets, at control posts, during transport and at transfer points. The United Kingdom reports may be found at: ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/transport/inspections_reports_reg_1_2005_en.htm

6.105 Inspections are carried out in the United Kingdom on a risk basis and in response

to intelligence received. Inspection programmes are planned by the Animal Health agency at a local level in partnership with Local Authorities through local liaison. Findings are kept under review and local action taken as appropriate where any major deficiencies are detected.

6.106 During 2009 Animal Health successfully authorised large numbers of transporters

as required by Regulation 1/2005 and took action against transporters when they either failed to comply with the Regulation or when they failed to comply with the terms of their authorisation. On a number of occasions incidents were reported to other Members States via the appropriate contact point for the relevant Member State. Animal Health approved 959 applications for transporter authorisations under the Welfare in Transport (WIT) Regulations in 2008.126 Of these none were refused and two were issued conditionally.

6.107 The total of 646 journey logs were approved, of which 543 new journeys were approved for the transportation of livestock and unregistered equines. A further 26 were rejected due to either unrealistic journey times or inadequate rest periods.

6.108 The bulk of routine checks of animals and means of transport are carried out by

local authority inspectors. During 2009 there were 138,986 vehicles inspected, some of which transport animals (these inspections also include documentary checks) and 3,177 non-compliances found. In addition there were 10,940 documentary only checks with 539 non-compliances found. Enforcement action taken included: • 1,888 oral warnings; • 683 written warnings; • 472 statutory notices; • 8 Home Office cautions and • 16 prosecutions.

6.109 Animal Health at the port of Dover checked 209 out of a total of 626 vehicles

(33.4%) transporting fattening and production cattle and sheep. One vehicle was found not to comply with the WIT regulations either due to operation or structure. One notice under article 24 of the WIT regulations was served. The problem was resolved at the port and the vehicle allowed to continue.

126 SI 2006/3260; SI 2007/1047 (W.105) SSI 2006/606 & SR 2007/32.

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/transport/inspections_reports_reg_1_2005_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/transport/inspections_reports_reg_1_2005_en.htm


Page 100

Animal welfare at slaughter or killing127 6.110 Defra and the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government have

delegated the responsibility for animal welfare implementation in slaughterhouses to the FSA/MHS. When animals are killed on farms or at knackers' yards, AH may monitor welfare. Where possible, Veterinary Officers monitor slaughter during visits to farms and, in particular, they may make visits to knackers' yards and to as many seasonal poultry slaughterers as possible in the period immediately before Christmas. AH also follows up reports and allegations of poor practice and, when necessary, instigates investigation with a view to provide advice for prosecution.

6.111 In 2009, welfare standards during slaughter or killing outside licensed

slaughterhouses were similar to those reported in previous years with very few reported problems. All but 3 of the 176 inspections during 136 visits in 2009 were to unlicensed poultry slaughterhouses, mainly undertaken during the pre-Christmas peak period. No serious non-compliance was found. There were 182 applications for a slaughterman’s licence, and 177 issued following an assessment of competence.

Northern Ireland On-farm animal welfare 6.112 In Northern Ireland, the responsibility for routine and targeted checks falls to

DARD Veterinary Service (DARD VS). In 2009, DARD VS carried out 753 on-farm welfare inspections. Inspections took place as a result of complaints or as part of the statutory surveillance requirement to assess whether on-farm welfare met the standards laid down in legislation and welfare codes. Of the inspections carried out in 2009 as a result of complaints (and targeted visits), 77.4% were fully compliant with legislation, while for randomly selected cross compliance inspections 96.9% were fully compliant with legislation. All complaints and allegations of poor welfare on specific farms were treated as a matter of urgency.

Animal welfare during transport 6.113 In Northern Ireland the responsibility for routine and targeted checks against

welfare in transport legislation falls to the DARD Veterinary Service (VS). Inspections can take place at the ports, at abattoirs and markets. In 2009 the DARD VS carried out 4,750 inspections involving various species. No document checks were recorded because DARD VS increased its focus on the implementation and enforcement of EC Regulation 1/2005. Investigations by DARD VS identified 65 infringements and resulted in the issue of: • 9 notices;

127 General information available at: defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/slaughter/index.htm#3

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/slaughter/index.htm#3


Page 101

• 30 written warnings; and • 6 prosecutions.

Animal welfare at slaughter or killing 6.114 The VS-VPHU monitors animal welfare and provides information to DARD on

prevailing animal welfare conditions in approved slaughterhouses and alerts divisional offices to farmers and hauliers that require investigation in respect of animal welfare issues. There were 56 applications for a slaughterman’s licence; following assessments of competence all 56 applicants received certificate of competence.

Official controls in the plant health sector Great Britain 6.115 In England and Wales, the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate maintained an

inspection regime of plant/plant product imports into the country from third countries in accordance with Community-wide legislation and supplemented these border controls with a programme of quarantine surveillance. This included general surveillance and surveys against specific high-risk plant pests and diseases. 14,008 import inspections were carried out in 2009/10, plus 85,000 quarantine surveillance inspections. The latter including: • 6,233 inspections of Solanaceous plants including tuber inspections; • 12,722 inspections done on plants (excluding produce) of genera that are

hosts to Bemisia tabaci; • 476 inspections for Diabrotica virgifera; • 14,920 inspections for Phytophthora ramorum/kernoviae (excluding

inspections done as part of the Phytophthora control project); • 3,759 inspections for Potato brown rot/ ring rot; • 624 inspections for Tuta absoluta; • 263 inspections arising from the outbreak of Citrus Longhorn beetle in

Boskoop (Netherlands) and • 235 inspections for Diaphania perspectalis.

6.116 In Scotland, there were 182 import inspections during 2009. General quarantine

surveillance totalled 5,763 inspections of which 3,022 were inspections for P. ramorum/kernoviae. During the growing season 4,831 seed potato crops were inspected. In addition, 65,787 tonnes of seed potato tubers and 9,233 tonnes of ware potatoes were inspected for third country export. For Diabrotica virgifera, 80 inspections were carried out.

6.117 In 2009, the Forestry Commission maintained an inspection regime of wood and

wood products imported into Great Britain from third countries in accordance with


Page 102

Community legislative requirements and also carried out a range of surveys in accordance with Community provisions. A total of 6,563 inspections of imports of wood and wood products, including 2,400 inspections of wood packaging material associated with goods of various commodities, were carried out. Noticeably the volume of controlled timber imported was approximately half (0.5 million m3) that of previous years (1 million m3) which was a reflection of the effects of the global economic difficulties on the controlled softwood import market. These were supplemented by specific surveys in relation to Phytophthora ramorum, P. kernoviae, Oak Processionary Moth and a newly reported bleeding canker disease of horse chestnut, Pseudomonas syringae pathovar aesculi as well as Pine-tree Lappet Moth (see para 4.49).

6.118 In 2009, 592 cases of non-compliance of imported plants and plant products into

Great Britain were reported to the FVO. These included documentary problems, particularly in respect of the failure to include additional declarations in phytosanitary certificates. 82 cases of non-compliance with phytosanitary requirements were recorded by the Forestry Commission in respect of wood and wood products, including imports of goods with associated wood packaging material which accounted for 64 of them. Overall, the level of compliance was considered to be high.

6.119 Also in 2009 the Forestry Commission performed 59 inspections of sawn timber

and wood packaging material imported directly via a limited trade from Portugal and submitted 31 samples to Forest Research for analysis to check for the presence of Pine Wood Nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus). All samples proved negative for the presence of the forestry pest.

Northern Ireland 6.120 In 2009, 1,257 general plant health inspections and 14 third country import

inspections were carried out in Northern Ireland. In addition specific surveys were carried out. A summary of the results is provided in Table 6.23.

Table 6.23: Results of specific plant health surveys carried out in Northern Ireland during 2009

Plant pest /disease Number of inspections

Number of positives

Citrus Longhorn Beetle 45 0

Colorado Beetle 552 0

Diabrotica virgifera 88 0

Fireblight 608 16

Liriomyza bryoniae / Bemisia tabaci 95 0

Phytophthora ramorum / kernoviae 642 4

Rhizomania 24 0

Ring Rot / Brown rot 113 0

single integrated multi-annual national control plan for

Documents